The Queen v. Mok Wai Lim
|
CACC000074/1988
BETWEEN
___________ Coram: Hon. Cons, V.-P., Penlington, J.A. & Sears, J. Date of hearings: 20th May, 1988. Date of delivery of judgment: 20th May, 1988. ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court: 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against concurrent sentences, each of 20 months, imposed by His Honour Judge Gall in the District Court on 5 charges of theft; and against a similar sentence of 15 months on 1 charge of uttering forged cheques. The judge made the distinction in length because no financial benefit accrued to the defendant on the last mentioned charge. 2. The Defendant was a salesman for a jewellery firm. In essence his job was to sell jewellery, collect payment and hand it over to the firm. What he did from time to time was to keep the payment for himself. At others he simply stole the jewellery. During the three years that he worked for the firm he made away with about $100,000 of the firm's property. The value did not all go to him, for the jewellery was pawned. We may note in passing that $100,000 is almost two times his salary for the time that he worked. The forgery of the cheques was an attempt to repay the bad debts of customers for whom the Defendant was responsible. 3. The Defendant is a single man living with his mother now aged 60 and earning her living as a hawker, it is said that while the Defendant is in prison there is no one to look after her. The Probation Report however indicates that she is quite able to look after herself. 4. In passing sentence the judge took into account the Defendant's clear record, that he was under pressure from his employer to recover the bad debts that he confessed to his employer and that he was cooperative with the police. 5. The Defendant tells -us today that he has repaid $34,000 to the firm by means of a payment into the firm's bank account; and that.the.firm has further deducted $10,000 from moneys due to him. Counsel for the Crown cannot confirm a repayment of $34,000 on the other hand it appears that in fact something a little over $15,000 has been deducted from commission due to the Defendant. 6. Speaking generally we find nothing improper in the sentences imposed. However we are concerned that the judge has in no wise referred to repayment or deduction from monies due. $15,000 is in the circumstances not an insignificant sum. We think that in principle it should be reflected in the sentence. 7. For these reasons we give leave to appeal, treat the appeal as a hearing itself, allow the appeal and reduce the concurrent sentences on each of the theft charges to 15 months.
Representation: Mok Wai Lim in person I. Grenville Cross, Crown Prosecutor for the Respondent |