THE QUEEN v. CHUNG YAU KWONG

______________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Mayo, J.

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to 11 charges of theft contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance Cap.210 and 7 counts of forgery pursuant to s.70 (2) (a) of the Crimes Ordinance Cap.200.

2. The applicant pleaded guilty to these offences before H.H. Judge Cameron in the District Court on the 3rd August 1990. The total amount involved in all these offences was $613,200.00.

3. Before passing sentence Cameron D.J. called for a background report from a Probation Officer. A full report was obtained on the surrounding circumstances.

4. After considering this report, Cameron D.J. passed a sentence of 3 1/2 years' imprisonment on each charge, and ordered that all of the sentences were to run concurrently.

5. In passing these sentences, it is clear that the learned judge also took into account the mitigating circumstances, which were put before him, by the applicant's Counsel, Miss. Au Yeung.

6. The learned judge stated in his Reasons for Sentence that he gave the applicant credit for his guilty plea, and the fact that up to the date of the commission of these offences he had been of good character.

7. What is also clear from the said reasons is that the learned judge passed the sentences on the basis of the applicant not having repaid any of the moneys stolen from his employer.

8. This is the main complaint which is made by the applicant in his application for an appeal against the sentences imposed.

9. There would appear to be some evidence that at least some of the moneys were repaid to his former employer. The applicant has sworn an affidavit in which he deposes that he sold the family residence, and applied $135,000.00 towards such repayment. This evidence has now been confirmed by the applicant's former employer.

10. In a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the applicant describes the circumstances leading up to the offences and stresses the financial pressures he was subjected to prior to this period. As a result of debts, he got himself into the hands of a loan shark and attempted to retrieve his fortunes by gambling. He claims that he stole money from his employer as an act of desperation.

11. He also makes reference to some other cases, where shorter sentences of imprisonment appear to have been imposed by the Courts, where the amounts involved were substantially in excess of the amounts involved in the present case.

12. Obviously, it is the case that each case depends on its individual facts, and no one case is likely to be identical to another.

13. Before us Mr. Anthony Chan said the main ground of complaint related to the repayment of the said moneys. He also suggested that the sentences were on the high side. He suggested a reduction of 6 months.

14. We are satisfied that the offences were quite serious. There can be no doubt that they were premeditated and occurred over a period of approximately 3 months. They involved a breach of his employer's trust.

15. We consider that the sentences imposed were in accordance with the range of sentences which are appropriate for this type of offence.

16. However, it would appear that the learned judge failed to take into account the fact that the applicant has made some attempt to repay the moneys stolen, thus evidencing his true remorse. We are, accordingly, prepared to give the applicant credit for this and would allow this application and reduce the sentences imposed by 6 months. The application is successful to this extent.