HKSAR v. NG, JUSTIN

CACC 79/2025 [2026] HKCA 1301

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 79 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 63 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  On 28 March 2025, the applicant confirmed his pleas of guilty to eight counts of theft and two counts of attempted theft, and pleaded guilty to an additional count of failing to surrender to custody before Woodcock J (the judge). 

2.  The applicant was sentenced to a total term of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  The theft counts involved the applicant, who was then an in-house accountant in a succession of five companies (although there were six victim companies), in misappropriating or attempting to misappropriate company funds between 6 March 2018 and 19 May 2020.  The total amount of funds involved in the offences was approximately HK$9.4 million.  The additional count concerned the applicant’s failure to surrender to custody after he had been granted bail by the judge pending sentence on the theft counts.

3.  On 14 April 2025, the applicant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal against his sentence.  He complained that the starting point adopted by the judge of 7 years was too high and that the enhancement of 2 years for the aggravating factors, including seven previous convictions for dishonesty offences, was excessive.  The resulting notional starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment was reduced by one third for his guilty pleas to 6 years’ imprisonment, and a consecutive term of 6 months’ imprisonment for the failure to surrender to custody was imposed, resulting in a total sentence of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

4.  The applicant submitted a letter dated 7 November 2025 indicating that he did not wish to pursue his application for leave to appeal against his sentence.  The Court issued a direction on 1 December 2025 that, in accordance with the legal procedures, he was required to file a notice of abandonment (Form VII)  as required by Rule 39 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, Cap 221A.  A reminder direction was issued on 20 January 2026.  He failed to file the necessary notice.

5.  At today’s hearing, when he was asked why he did not file a notice of abandonment as directed, he applied for an adjournment because his wife had arranged for him to receive legal advice concerning his case and he was expecting the lawyer to visit him this week.  He claimed that he did not receive the Court’s letters dated 1 December 2025 and 20 January 2026.  However, he did receive the notice of today’s hearing on 14 April 2026 and the respondent’s written submissions. Inquiries have been made with the Correctional Services Department and its records show that he received the Court’s letters.  He confirmed that the letter dated 7 November 2025 was written by him, but some time in January or February 2026, he changed his mind and did not wish to abandon his appeal. When asked why he did not inform the Court of his change of mind, he said that he told one of the clerks at the prison and he thought that the clerk would notify the Court.  I did not accept this explanation, as he had written the letter to the Court, informing it of his desire to abandon his appeal against sentence.  He is fully aware of the court procedures given his previous criminal convictions.

6.  I refused the applicant’s application for an adjournment as he had been notified of today’s hearing in early April of this year and had ample time to seek legal advice before the hearing.

7.  The application proceeded on the basis of his grounds of appeal as set out in his notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence.  I did not find any merit in these grounds of appeal.

8.  In light of the criminality involved, the resultant sentence was clearly just and appropriate. The judge adopted a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment, which was appropriate in the circumstances.  Her decision to enhance the starting point to 9 years’ imprisonment was justified by the cumulative aggravating features of the case.  The applicant, while employed as an accountant, committed serious breaches of the high degree of trust reposed in him by the victim companies. Over a period of about 2 years, he committed multiple theft and attempted theft offences involving approximately HK$9.4 million.  The last offence was committed while he was on court bail, demonstrating a serious disregard for the law.  The judge was also entitled to reject the applicant’s explanation that he stole the money to repay his mother’s gambling debts, particularly where the evidence showed that he used the proceeds to fund overseas trips, lavish dinners, expensive gifts for his family, and private housing.  Further, the applicant had 7 previous convictions, all involving dishonesty.  These factors justified the enhancement and demonstrated that the applicant was a repeat offender. 

9.  The applicant had no cause for complaint about the sentence imposed on him in light of the criminality involved, his repeat offending for this type of offence, his commission of some of the offences whilst on bail, and his breach of his bail conditions by failing to surrender to custody.  The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

10.  The applicant was reminded of his right to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal, but he was also informed of the consequences of doing so, which may include a direction for a loss of time spent in custody pending his appeal if the Court were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of his application.