THE QUEEN v. NG YU KEUNG

------------------

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant was sentenced after plea to nine months' imprisonment by Deputy Judge Hill for handling stolen goods. He now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.

2. The admitted facts against the applicant were that on the 24th of July 1989 the applicant, who was employed by his brother-in-law to manage a store known as the Kwok Ming Medicine Shop in Kowloon, received a quantity of shampoo and milk powder from four other persons who were the co-accused at trial, knowing these to be stolen property. The value of the goods received amounted to some $3,600. It was admitted that the goods were obtained for about 20% less than the retail price.

3. At the trial the Crown offered no evidence against the four co-accused and the trial judge noted that the applicant felt a sense of grievance in that only the applicant was proceeded against.

4. In considering the appropriate sentence to be passed the judge took into consideration his plea of guilty and clear record. In an extemporaneous decision given orally at the trial the judge said that a deterrent sentence was necessary for this case.

5. In his written Reasons for Verdict the trial judge did not refer to the need for a deterrent sentence but he did say this: "This was a professional job as the goods were to be disposed of in the course of business." And he said that if the applicant had received the stolen goods for his personal use, then he might have been persuaded to impose a non-custodial sentence.

6. We are satisfied that the trial judge was correct in his general approach. However, having regard to the value of the stolen goods and comparing the sentences of one or two years' imprisonment imposed in other cases of handling stolen property where the value of goods ranged from hundreds of thousands to about a million dollars, we are of the view that nine months in all the circumstances of the case is manifestly excessive. In our view nine months would have been appropriate in this case after trial. We would therefore allow the application, treat the application as the hearing of the appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentence from nine months' to six months' imprisonment.