HKSAR v. CHUNG HON KAY

CACC000177/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 177
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
CHUNG HON-KAY Applicant

————————-

Coram: Hon. Mayo and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 9 July 1998

Date of delivery of judgment: 9 July 1998

———————-

J U D G M E N T

———————-

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to three charges of theft, one of forgery and two of using a false instrument and procuring a falsebank entry. He was sentenced to a total of 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment and now seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposedupon him.

2. The Applicant was employed in a position of trust in the garment business. His employers were Japanese business people who particularlyplaced reliance upon him. H.H. Judge Wilson, the sentencing judge described the offences in this way:

“In charge 1, using his authority as his company, he transferred part of his company’s wool stock to an unknowing company and thenarranged for another company to buy it from the first company. The purchase price was paid to a company, giving the D1 access tothe proceeds.

In charge 3 he again bought wool on behalf of his company, and after telling a warehouse attendant there was a mistake in delivery,arranged to collect it himself and sold in China.

In charge 4 he was involved with two forged company chops which were used to facilitate the offences of theft; and two batches ofwool disappeared.

In charge 5 he diverted part of his employer’s wool purchase to another company and stole the proceeds.

In charges 7 and 8 he intercepted a purchase of wool again using forged company chops, and with another person diverted the purchaseprice to a ‘front’ company, again giving him access to part of proceeds.”

3. The total loss to his employers was $1.3 million and $43,200 was lost by another victim.

4. In his Grounds of Appeal the Applicant refers to his family circumstances and states that in his opinion the sentences imposed wereunduly harsh.

5. Before us, he said that he was extremely remorseful. He also said that he would like to apologize to the victims. He said that thestaff at Lai Chi Kok Centre had reposed trust in him and he wished to turn over a new leaf. He then repeated some of the matterswhich he referred to in his Grounds of Appeal.

6. The Judge adopted a starting point of 2 years on the 1st count and 3 years on the remainder of the charges which he considered shouldbe served concurrently. He gave the usual 1/3 discount for the pleas thus arriving at the total sentence of 3 years and 4 months.

7. This was a lenient sentence. The application is without merit and is dismissed. 3 months of the time spent by the Applicant in custodywill not count towards his sentence.

(Simon Mayo) (M. Stuart-Moore)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. Francis Lo, S.A.D.P.P. (Ag.) (D.P.P.) for Respondent

Chung Hon Kay, Applicant in person