THE QUEEN v. TAM SIU LUN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 42 OF 1986

____________

_____________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Penlington, J.:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to ten charges of furnishing false information contrary to section 19(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance. The charges were virtually identical and involved a system of obtaining money from a finance company by means of post-dated cheques which in fact the appellant had obtained through what he knew were false companies. He knew that these cheques were not genuine and that invoices produced in support of them were also bogus. This went on for a fairly short period but some $1,118,000 was obtained.

2. The Judge imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment to be served concurrently in respect of each offence. He took into account various factors which arose in mitigation, but it is argued here by leading counsel that there were other factors which he did not take into account and that he did not give as much allowances he should have for those which he did.

3. So far as we are concerned, the factor which we do feel was not given sufficient weight was that there was a very substantial delay, one year and seven months, between the time of the appellant's arrest and the time when he finally was charged and appeared in Court. During that time, he had been cooperating with the ICAC and had made some five statements relating to the role played by other persons. He pleaded guilty to all charges at the outset. The appellant has also made substantial restitution partly by mortgaging of his flat and some half a million dollars has been paid from the total amount lost. It is also pointed out that this was a genuine business which went into cash flow problems and it then became a process of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It is unfortunately all too common but the end result, of course, must have been inevitable.

4. We feel that the Trial Judge did not give as much discount as he should have for these factors and taking them, into account together with the other mitigating factors, we feel we can reduce the sentences from three years to two years on each charge, all to be concurrent.