HKSAR v. Watt Siu Hung
Read the full judgment text of CACC 93/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 July 2001 before Stuart-Moore, Acting CJHC, Mayo VP and Wong JA.
Criminal law – sentencing – credit card fraud – possession of forged credit cards and identity card relating to another person – obtaining property by deception – appeal against sentence – whether starting point of 3 years manifestly excessive – whether consecutive sentence for identity card wrong in principle – Applicant pleaded guilty to four charges in the District Court – forged credit cards in the name of the true holder of the reported-lost identity card – goods purchased valued slightly in excess of HK$3,000 – offences occurred end of 1994 to early 1995 – Applicant absconded while on bail before eventually surrendering – Judge adopted starting point of 3 years for credit card charges and 1 year for identity card – full one-third discount for guilty plea – 2 years on the credit card charges and 8 months on the identity card – consecutive – total 2 years 8 months imprisonment – no formal tariff for credit card fraud – starting point on the high side but not manifestly excessive – identity card charge added a further dimension to overall criminality justifying consecutive order – sentences not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive – leave to appeal refused – application dismissed
Legal issues: Whether sentences for credit card fraud and related offences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Cited by 31 cases
|
CACC000093/2001 CACC 93/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 181 OF 1995) ________________
________________ Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore, Acting CJHC, Mayo VP and Wong JA in Court Date of Hearing: 13 July 2001 Date of Judgment: 13 July 2001 ________________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.The Applicant pleaded guilty before H H Judge Poon in the District Court to one charge of being in possession of an identity card relating to another person, one charge of being in possession of a false instrument with the intention to use it, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 and one charge of actually obtaining property by deception. He was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment on the first charge and 2 years imprisonment on all of the other charges which were ordered to be served concurrently. However, the sentence on the first charge had to be served consecutively thus making a total of 2 years 8 months imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentences. 2.The false instruments referred to were forged credit cards which were in the name of the true holder of the identity card. The identity card had some time previously been reported as lost. 3.The offences all occurred at the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995. The reason for the delay in hearing the case was that after the Applicant was charged with the offences he was granted bail and absconded. He eventually surrendered himself to the police. 4.The Applicant was searched by a police officer who found him to be in possession of the credit cards and the identity card. He had attempted to use one of the cards when purchasing various items of clothing but was informed that the credit limit of the card had been exceeded. He then used one of the other cards. The value of the goods in question was slightly in excess of $3,000. However, there was every reason to believe that but for his arrest he would have continued to use the credit cards. 5.The Judge adopted a starting point of 3 years for the credit card charges and 1 year for the identity card. She gave the Applicant the full one-third discount for his plea notwithstanding the fact that he had absconded while on bail. This was more than generous in the circumstances. 6.Two complaints are made on this application. The first is that the starting point of 3 years taken by the Judge was too high. 7.The Judge dealt with this case as a relatively minor credit card fraud case. There is no formal tariff for these offences. While the starting point may have been on the high side it cannot be said to have been manifestly excessive. 8.The other complaint which is made is that the sentence relating to the identity card should have been made concurrent with the other sentences. While there was a connection between the offences the Judge cannot be criticised for ordering that the sentence be served consecutively as it did add a further dimension to the overall criminality of the applicant. 9.It has not been demonstrated that these sentences were either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and this application is dismissed.
Representation: Mr P. S. Chapman, SADPP and Miss Vinci Lam, GC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr Richard Donald, instructed by Messrs Adrian Yeung & Cheng for the Applicant |
Other judgments that cite this case