R. v. Ng Kan Tong
Read the full judgment text of CACC 466/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 April 1997.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. It comes to us from the District Court.
|
CACC000466/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 466 _______________
_______________ Coram: Power, Ag C.J., Bokhary, J.A. and Sears, J. in Court Date of hearing: 10 April 1997 Date of judgment: 10 April 1997 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Bokhary, J.A.: 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. It comes to us from the District Court. 2. In that court, the applicant was the 3rd accused. We mention that because it will be necessary to refer to other accused. 3. On August 5 last year, HH Judge Gould convicted the applicant after trial on two charges of conspiracy to defraud. And on the same day, the judge sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment. That was by way of concurrent terms of that duration on each charge. 4. The applicant needs an extension of time because his notice of application is dated November 13 last year, three months after the judge sentenced him. 5. We turn to the particulars to the two charges on which he was convicted, the 4th and 5th charges. 6. The particulars to the 4th charge are that the applicant and the 4th accused:
7. Wing Tat Hong was a partnership. There were three partners. This applicant was one of them. The other two were the 1st accused and a man named Lam. Mr Lam did not face any charge. 8. Moving on to the 6th charge, the particulars thereto are that the 1st accused, the 2nd accused and this applicant:
9. Pursuant to the conspiracy charged under the 4th charge, the Dah Sang Bank was defrauded of $204,630.00. 10. And pursuant to the conspiracy charged under the 6th charge, the Hong Kong Chinese Bank was defrauded of $89,760.00. 11. Both banks have recouped their losses. The 4th accused raised funds to repay the Dah Sang Bank. And the Hong Kong Chinese Bank obtained repayment by calling in security which this applicant had put up. 12. The judge considered 18 months' imprisonment to be the appropriate starting point for each of these offences on its own. Because there were two offences, he took a starting point of two years. That starting point we do not fault. 13. Giving the applicant some credit for his previous good character and for the fact that at one stage he was going to plead guilty, the judge allowed a discount of six months. Hence the concurrent terms of 18 months' imprisonment. 14. The judge said that those were the only two points of mitigation which he considered significant. 15. But there was another matter of significance here, namely the fact that the two banks had recouped their losses in full, one of them by calling in security put up by this applicant. 16. These were incredibly silly offences for this man to have committed. As he told us, he has lost his reputation; the partnership is now insolvent, he is left with nothing to show in his mid-50's and after being of previous good character until these offences. 17. Thus, it seems to us that there was a significant mitigating factor which the judge did not take into account, namely the fact that banks have recouped their losses and have done so in the way we have just described. 18. All things considered, we propose to extend time, treat the application as the appeal itself and allow the appeal by reducing the sentence to such an extent as will result in this man's release today. 19. He deserved punishment, but he has now endured sufficient punishment.
Representation: Applicant in person Mr A A Bruce QC & Mr Edmond Lee (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the respondent |