HKSAR v. CHAN MING KUEN

HCMA 1244/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1244 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 3399/2000)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant appeals against a total sentence of 12 months imprisonment passed in respect of 13 charges of Procuring an Entry in the Record of a Bank by Deception, contrary to Section 18D(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The offences relate to fraudulent claims for CSSA.

2. Between 1st April 1997 and 31st May 1997, the Appellant obtained CSSA in the total sum of $95,359.00 and during that period she confirmed on 4 separate occasions that she was not working. Enquiries revealed that on the occasions when the Appellant was employed, she continued to claim CSSA with a resulting overpayment of CSSA of $30,783.08.

3. The Appellant told the court that she was not saying the sentence was too heavy, but she asked for a bind over, or a suspended sentence, because she wanted to go out of prison to look after her divorce matters and also to look after her 15 year old son, who is living in Hong Kong.

4. In sentencing, the Magistrate took into account the Appellant's plea of guilty and her clear record and also the fact that she had already paid back about half of the overpayment. He considered the case of HKSAR v. Cho Kwun-wah (1998) 2 HKLR 738 where in a similar case, 11 charges of deception merited a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Similarly, in HKSAR v. Wong Kam Sang Magistracy Appeal 1156 of 1999, a sentence of 10 months for 13 similar charges was considered lenient by Woo J, as he then was.

5. The Magistrate thought these offences were serious as they were a drain on the allocation of resources and could have affected people who have genuine need of such public funds. He took a starting point of 18 months imprisonment, discounted that by 1/3 to reflect the Appellant's plea of guilty and arrived at a sentence of 12 months imprisonment on each charge. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. There is no new material before me today that was not before the Magistrate. These are offences where an element of deterrence is needed. The Magistrate was aware that the Appellant had been deserted by her husband and that she had a child to care for. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.