Li Yau Choi v. The Queen

CACC000552/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 1969

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

Coram: Rigby, S.P.J.

Date of Judgment: 1 September 1969

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges preferred against him of larceny by a trick. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run consecutively. He now appeals against the sentences. The appellant is a man aged 56 and it would certainly appear from his past record that he is a professional confidence trickster.

2. The facts in regard to the first charge were that on the 20th May the appellant met a widow, whose age is given as 57, in the street. He approached her, told her that he knew her nephew, and that he himself was a wealthy man, owning a shop and several flats. He then asked her if she would wish to work for him as an odd-job worker on a monthly salary of $350. He then took her to a restaurant for a meal and afterwards to a hotel where he hired a room. At some stage in the proceedings, whilst in the hotel, he noticed that she was wearing a gold necklace and he persuaded her to take it off and put it into her purse, saying that he would buy her another good necklace. She gave him her purse and he appeared to her to put the gold necklace into it and then returned it to her.

3. Later, they left the hotel together, but after they had gone some distance he apparently disappeared. She then examined her purse and found that it contained a piece of paper which, instead of containing her gold necklace, in fact had nine 10 pieces wrapped up in it. She also noticed that the $55 she had previously had in her purse were missing.

4. That happened on the 20th May. On the 30th May some police officers who were in the street noticed a woman struggling with a man; the man was in fact the appellant. The woman complained to the Police telling them what had earlier occurred. The appellant apparently admitted it and offered the sum of $350 as compensation. He was arrested and taken to the police station. Whilst in the police station, the Police apparently had good reason to believe that he was mixed up in another swindle and they placed him in an identification parade, as a result of which another woman identified him as having swindled her some 18 months or so previously. That was the subject matter of the second charge. The facts of that second charge were that this man again met this woman, who was an amah of some 39 years of age. He met her in the street. After having conversed with her, he told her that he could get a better job for her. He invited her to tea in a restaurant, took her to various shops and offered to buy her various clothes, an offer which she apparently declined. The climax came when he then took her to a hotel. Subsequently, it would appear that their relationship grew and, later on, whilst at a hotel, he persuaded her to withdraw her savings account from the bank in which it had been placed and transfer it to another bank. She agreed. She met him subsequently at an apartment house and she was then in possession of the money. He told her that it was unsafe for her to carry the money about loose. She gave it to him and he appeared to wrap it up for her and handed it back to her. Shortly afterwards they left the apartment house together to go to the bank where the money was to have been deposited. Then apparently he disappeared. After he disappeared she opened the wrapped parcel which should have contained her savings - $2,300 - and found that in fact it contained nothing but several pieces of toilet paper. The amount involved was, as I say, $2,300.

5. The appellant has no less than 10 previous convictions of a similar nature; the last being in November 1963, in respect of which, on two counts, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

6. Despite the despicable character of the particular offences and the deplorable record of the appellant, I am of the opinion that the sentences imposed, taken in their aggregate, are unduly severe. The sentence on the first count of 18 months will be reduced to one of 6 months' imprisonment; and the sentence on the second charge, which was in fact the first in point of time - and certainly the more heinous of the two offences will be reduced from 18 months to 12 months' imprisonment; the sentences to run consecutively.