HKSAR v. Huang Shaoyi

HCMA1253/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1253/2005

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 2789 OF 2005)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court

Date of Hearing:  1 March 2006

Date of Judgment:  1 March 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1.This is an appeal against sentences totalling 14 months’ imprisonment imposed after trial on conviction for two offences of theft.

2.This appellant had lived with the victim and he had an extensive collection of memorabilia, which included cards, coins, bank notes, special wine bottles, teapots and the like.  It was difficult to put precise values upon it because it represented many years of collecting, but it must have cost, the evidence was, about $200,000 and was worth in excess of $300,000.

3.The relationship between this appellant and the victim broke down.  She wanted a separation fee.  The victim is a lorry driver who had driven off into China and in his absence she stole his collection.  That was the substance of the theft in Charge 1.  She also took three mobile telephones and a camera, that was the substance of Charge 2.

4.She invited a dealer to look at the collection she was selling.  He already knew of it.  He offered her, and she accepted, only $14,000.  It is right to point out that realising the enormity of what she had done she tried to get the property back, but the dealer would not part with it. 

5.The magistrate said, rightly in my view, that she had engaged in wholesale dishonesty and that she had stolen what was of great value, both in monetary and sentimental terms.  He said, and it must be right, that she was motivated by both greed and vindictiveness.  He pointed out that the victim had trusted her in his home and that she had betrayed that trust.

6.It is a great shame that the appellant did not plead guilty and earn herself some sympathy and a discount thereby.

7.I regret to say that in the circumstances I have outlined, there is no reason for me to interfere with this sentence.  I judge it to be towards the top end of the bracket for an offence like this, but bearing in mind the features I have briefly mentioned, it is rightly so.

8.The appeal is dismissed and the sentence passed is confirmed.

Ms Wong Kam-hing, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant, Huang Shaoyi (黃少儀), in person