R. v. CHENG WAI KIT and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No 416

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Liu JA:

1. The applicant Cheng Wai-kit was a warehouse attendant of a business establishment. On various occasions between April and September, 1995, he and his co-defendant stole from his former company various computer parts. He was found guilty of theft. For the offences in charges 1 to 3, he was sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment, and for the offence in charge 5, he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered by the judge to run concurrently.

2. He was unhappy with the length of his sentence and now seeks leave to appeal. He directs our attention to the facts that he was a first offender, that he co-operated with the authority and that he pleaded guilty. He provided information which led to the arrest of the 2nd defendant and an investigation of a computer centre. He pleads before us that his father lost his left leg and that his mother is unwell. He also complains that the judge failed to take into consideration the circumstances set out in the Probation Officer's report.

3. In the 1st charge, over $1.4 million goods were stolen from the company. In the 2nd charge, the loss to the company was over $130,000. In the 3rd charge, about $1.2 million of goods were again stolen from the company. A little earlier in April 1995, nine computer hard discs were taken from the company with a value in excess of $9,000. That was subject-matter in the 5th charge. The amount of the value of stolen goods is substantial.

4. As an employee, he was certainly in breach of trust. And the judge paid due regard to that factor. None of the stolen properties had been recovered and the judge noted a total loss of $2.8 m. to the former employer of the applicant. The judge said that the loss was "highly significant". The judge regarded the applicant as being under the influence of his co-defendant. His previous good character was taken into account; as was his cooperation with the police.

5. The judge took 5 years' imprisonment as a starting point and reduced it to 2½ years for charges 1 - 3. The applicant was given the benefit of the same discount in his sentence in the 5th charge and the applicant received a 15-month term. His personal circumstances were not overlooked. With the discount, the total term he was to serve was 2½ years. We have borne in mind what he sets out in his Grounds of Appeal, but we are unable to say that the sentences passed by the judge are, in any way, wrong in principle; nor are they manifestly excessive. The application is wholly unmeritorious. His application stands dismissed. We order that his application be dismissed. And we further order that the applicant is to suffer a loss of time of 2 months.