The Queen v. Shing Kang Chuen

CACC000498/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

_________

Coram: Hon. Li, J.A., Cons & Silke, JJ.A.

Date: 15th September 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The applicant appeared for trial on a multi-count indictment.

2. He pleaded guilty, and there were other persons arraigned with him, to six charges of obtaining property by deception and three charges of evading a liability by deception. Of the remaining charges. laid against him, with others, a nolle prosequi was entered.

3. The background, very shortly, is that which might be termed "a long-term fraud" - masterminded we are told by he who was the first defendant a trial. It was accepted by the trial judge that this applicant played a minor part.

4. But it was a careful, large scale and long-term fraud and while the applicant did not participate in the profit - he was apparently paid a sum of $2,000 on each of two occasions - he had taken part in it from about 8th August 1981 to approximately the end of December of 1981. His cheque signing duties were then taken over by another.

5. At the point when he withdrew there still remained, in the firm, cheques which he had signed. These had been passed over to the first defendant, CHAN. It was the applicant's cheques which had been used in order to buy (if one can use that word) certain items of goods. He knew full well that these cheques would be dishonoured.

6. That having been said, he has been cooperative all along with the police. He is married with a daughter and his wife is presently pregnant. He has three previous convictions, none of the same nature.

7. The trial judge passed a sentence of two years and eleven months' imprisonment. We find some difficulty in understanding as to where this actual figure came from though we sympathize with the Judge faced with these numerous charges in attempting to pass sentence on each individual charge.

8. In the light of his participation, or lack of it, and in the light of his plea of guilty and his cooperation, we do not think the trial judge gave sufficient discount in the overall sentence.

9. We thought that a period of eighteen months would, overall, have been the proper sentence in the circumstances here.

10. We therefore quash the sentence passed upon the applicant, treating this application as the hearing of the appeal, and substitute a sentence of eighteen months on each of the charges to run concurrently.

Representation:

Paul Dinan, Esq. instructed by Messrs. Howell & Lo for Applicant.

G.J. Lugar-Mawson, Esq. for Crown