Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000004/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 April 2008 before Stuart-Moore Ag CJHC, Beeson JA, Wright JA.
Criminal law – theft – section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 – entrustment of over HK$5 million to hold for safekeeping – respondent used money to purchase property and car parking space – partial repayment of approximately HK$3 million – balance of HK$1,977,915.04 outstanding – sentence review under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 – whether community service order of 240 hours was appropriate – whether respondent showed genuine remorse – sentence of 240 hours community service quashed and substituted with 2 years' imprisonment pursuant to section 81B – starting point of 4 years' imprisonment reduced by 9 months for prosecutorial delay, 6 months for sum repaid, 6 months for completed community service, and a further 3 months for false hope created – whether appropriate discount for prosecutorial delay – R v Clark range of 5 to 9 years for sums between HK$3 million and HK$15 million applied via HKSAR v Cheung Mee-kiu – guidance from Secretary for Justice v Chan Boon-ning on delay – community service unlikely to be appropriate absent genuine remorse – Secretary for Justice v Ting Kong-ho, HKSAR v Li Shui-keung, Secretary for Justice v HKL and Anor, Secretary for Justice v Choi Shuk-kan, Secretary for Justice v Law Tat-leung followed – no genuine remorse as respondent affirmed application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time.
Legal issues: Appropriateness of community service order for theft of over HK$5 million · Assessment of appropriate discount for prosecutorial delay and mitigating factors
Outcome: Application for review of sentence succeeded. Sentence of community service quashed and substituted with 2 years' imprisonment pursuant to section 81B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 6 cases