THE QUEEN v. WONG PING LEUNG (D1)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A. :

1. The Applicant was convicted before Judge Cameron of the offence of Theft, particulars of which alleged that on the 27th of May 1985 he stole travellers cheques to the value of $1,000,000 United States currency, the property of the Bank of Credit and Commerce. He pleaded guilty and he was Sentenced to a period of 3 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. On the 27th of May couriers had delivered a parcel containing 2,000 travellers cheques of US$500 denomination to the Bank of Credit and Commerce. The Applicant works in the Mailroom Section of the bank. The cheques disappeared, he was questioned and then as a result of the police investigation he was charged with this offence.

3. There was another person involved with him who pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was sent for trial.

4. The Judge had before him a comprehensive probation officer's report and a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services which latter stated that the Applicant was suitable for a Detention Centre. The Applicant is aged 20. In imposing the sentence he did, the Judge took into consideration that the Applicant might have been influenced by others, but nevertheless, that he was a willing party to the theft; a considerable portion of the cheques had not been recovered and the age of the Applicant. He went on that, although a place was available in the Detention Centre, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the amount, he was of the view that 3 years' imprisonment was the proper sentence.

5. When this matter came on for hearing on the last occasion, we thought it proper to ask the Commissioner of Correctional Services to give us his views on a Training Centre Order in the light of that which Miss Pinto had advanced to us on behalf of the Applicant and of, in particular, his age, his background and the offence itself.

6. This morning, Miss Pinto, who has had an opportunity of seeing that report and the Applicant who has an opportunity of having it read to him, informs us, on the instructions of the Applicant, that he would prefer to remain in prison because he is attending a shorthand course which he believes might not be available to him in the Training Centre. He asks us to reduce the sentence.

7. We do not think this is a matter to which we should give great consideration because it is not for the Applicant to bargain with this Court. Because of his age, the circumtances of the offence and his own background circumstances, we think that the proper course to take is that he go to a Training Centre. Training Centre means exactly what it says and no doubt the regime can be tailored to suit his particular aptitudes. Further he would be subject to the supervision, which we think he most manifestly needs, upon his release. For those reasons we will set aside the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment and substitute therefor a Training Centre Order. The application is granted and the appeal allowed to that extent.