Cheung Hung v. The Queen

CACC000986/1982

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang & Barker, JJ.A.

Date: 21 December 1982

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

Barker, J.A.:

1. The appellant in this case, CHEUNG Hung, appeals against sentences of imprisonment passed upon him on the 27th September 1982 in respect of three charges of theft.

2. On the 1st charge he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. On the 2nd he was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment and on the 3rd he was sentenced to 6 mouths' imprisonment - those sentences being ordered to run consecutively and so in all, he was sentenced to a total of 4 years.

3. He now, with leave of the single judge, appeals against those sentences. It must be said, at once, that these offences were serious offences What the appellant did was that he, being in the jewellery business and having had entrusted to him precious stones or jewellery in order to set them, pawned large quantities of these jewels, either in the unmade state or when they were made up.

4. We do not know the exact amount of money involved in the cases because the matter is still in the hands of the Official Receiver. Some property has been recovered from the pawnbrokers but again, the position is not entirely clear as to how much has had to be paid to the pawnbrokers if anything to secure their release.

5. What is said on behalf of the appellant is that, in the first place, those sentences ought not to have been ordered to run consecutively and secondly, that in any event they were, individually and in the totality, too long, having regard to the general run of cases.

6. The appellant is a man, 41 years of age, married, has a wife and one daughter and a mother who is 65 whom he was supporting. He had been a jewellery worker for some 25 years, but in April of 1979 he set up his own business with the aid of $500,000 which he had borrowed from various friends. He began to work on his own account employing initially something like 30 workers and eventually as many as 60 workers.

7. It is perfectly clear that he was the sort of man who may have been a very good employee but was never cut out to be an employer. The business may have initially prospered but it rapidly must have become apparent to him that it was failing and it was in an attempt to rescue this business that he resorted to the dishonesty that he did and pawned all these jewellery. In fact, by December of 1981, matters had got so bad that the business had to close and in the following months he was declared bankrupt.

8. These offences, as I have said, were serious offences involving serious dishonesty by a man who was in a position of trust in the sense that these articles of jewellery had been entrusted to him. And therefore they are offences which merit condign and serious punishment. But we accept that he was hitherto a man of good character. He admitted his offences immediately to the police and he pleaded guilty at his trial.

9. We are of the view that although there were three charges, the realistic way to look at the matter is to say that they were all part of one dishonest transaction. And for those reasons, we are of the view that it would not be right to order that the sentences should run consecutively.

10. Bearing everything in mind, we are of the view that the sentences should be left undisturbed in their amount but they should be ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively.

11. To that extent, therefore, this appeal is allowed.

Representation:

Miss Corinne Remedios (Fairbairn & Kwok) for Appellant.

Mr. R.A. Osborne for Crown/Respondent.