R. v. Lam Chi Pang

Read the full judgment text of CACC 525/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 January 1996.

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft and one charge of making a false report of an offence. He was sentenced to a total of 20 months' imprisonment by Judge Caird.

Case No.CACC 525/1995
Court
Court of Appeal
Date09 Jan 1996
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000525/1995

No. 525 of 1995
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN Respondent
AND
LAM CHI PANG Applicant

--------------------

Coram: Bokhary, J.A. and Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 9 January 1996

Date of delivery of judgment: 9 January 1996

--------------------

J U D G M E N T

--------------------

Bewley, J.: (giving the judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft and one charge of making a false report of an offence. He was sentenced to a total of 20 months' imprisonment by Judge Caird.

2. The applicant was the proprietor of a Hong Kong trading company, which was in financial difficulties. The victim was the proprietor of a Shenzhen trading company and they had business dealings together.

3. On 8th March, 1995, the victim gave the applicant a bank draft for $1,580,000. It was to be brought to Hong Kong by the applicant and applied to the payment of the victim's creditors. The following day he deposited the draft in the Bank of China in Hong Kong but immediately withdrew that sum in cash, which he gave to an accomplice with instructions to deposit it in various bank accounts and retain the balance of $400,000. He then took some sleeping pills and became dizzy. Later he made a false report to the police that his friend had swindled him. He broke down under questioning and confessed. All but $51,233 of this money has been recovered.

4. He has one irrelevant previous conviction and he now expresses his remorse and says his family is facing hardship. But this was a serious breach of trust. The mitigating factors were his plea of guilty and the recovery of the money.

5. Nevertheless, we feel that the sentence was not wrong in principle and was not manifestly excessive. We therefore refuse the application.

(K. Bokhary) (E. de B. Bewley)
Justice of Appeal Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr David Chan, S.C.C., for Crown/Respondent

Applicant (Lam Chi Pang) in person