Pang Kut-tin v. The Queen
|
CACC001195/1976
----------------- Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 31st December, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Pickering, J.A. 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to 14 charges of obtaining property by deception and to one charge of theft. He has 71 previous convictions including 21 for obtaining property by deception and 6 for theft. On the first charge of obtaining property by deception, in connection with which 4 additional offences were taken into consideration, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Upon each of the remaining charges he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently thus totalling two years. The appeal is against those sentences. 2. The Appellant's modus operandi was to visit retail shops in each of which he would make a purchase of goods to a quite substantial amount paying therefor with U.S or H.K. dollars cheques or what purported to be such cheques in an amount greater than the value of the goods purchased; the Appellant would then request change in Hong Kong currency. In every case he obtained either change or goods or both against worthless documents. In one instance the circumstances of the offence was such that the Appellant was charged with and pleaded guilty to theft as opposed to obtaining property by deception. 3. Upon his appeal the Appellant said that he had two sons studying medicine in Toronto one of whom had just graduated and one of whom was about to do so. It was, he claimed, for the sake of his sons that he had committed these offences and the numerous preceding offences dating back to what he described as 1958 but was in fact 1951 when he was convicted of impersonation of a public servant and larceny by a trick. His request to the Court was that his sentences should be suspended, a request which he amended to one for suspension or the mere upholding of the original sentences when we asked him to address us as to why his sentences should not be increased. We are of the opinion that sentences totalling two years' imprisonment were entirely inadequate for this group of 15 offences carried out in a calculated manner by a smooth operator who is an accomplished confidence trickster and who has an appalling record much of which is concerned with crimes of a similar nature. It was for this reason that we allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentences substituting for the sentence of two years' imprisonment on the first charge a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment and for the concurrent sentences of 18 months upon each of the remaining charges, concurrent sentences of 3 years, those sentences to run also concurrently with the 4 years' sentence imposed in respect of the first charge. The effect is that the Appellant's sentences are increased from two years to four years. Representation: Appellant in person. Macdougall for Crown/respondent. |