HKSAR v. TSANG MAN CHUNG

CACC 560/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 560 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 361 OF 1999)

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Stuart-Moore VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 29 October 1999, the Applicant was convicted of three charges of theft following a trial before Judge Toh in the District Court. The Applicant was then sentenced to a total of four years and nine months' imprisonment against which he now seeks leave to appeal out of time. The Applicant abandoned, on 10 March 2000, his application relating to conviction.

2. The Applicant's notice and grounds of appeal relating to sentence are dated 21 March 2000, almost four months out of time. In an affidavit bearing the same date, the Applicant stated that his failure to issue a notice of appeal in the proper time was due to his ignorance of the law and the fact that he was refused legal aid on 21 January 2000 in relation to his application for leave to appeal against conviction. Plainly, his reasons for being out of time are inadequate for the purposes of granting leave out of time.

3. This conclusion has not prevented us from looking at the merits of the appeal which on first reading might well have given rise to an arguable ground. The Applicant stated that he had pleaded guilty to the first charge of theft, relating to an allegation that he stole $2,800,000. He went on to say that he had not been given a one-third discount on the two and a half years' sentence he received for this offence. However, a perusal of the papers shows this to be untrue and that the judge sentenced the Applicant following a contested trial on all charges. All in all, the Applicant stole $4.4 m when he carried out his part in what the judge rightly described as a "highly sophisticated operation reaching deep into the Standard Chartered Bank's operations". The judge was dealing with the Applicant for three separate offences and properly imposed consecutive sentences to reflect the overall criminality involved in the case.

4. Today, the Applicant has referred us to a number of other examples of offenders being convicted and sentenced to lesser sentences for theft where concurrent sentences were imposed. We are concerned with the Applicant's case as to whether his sentence was appropriate. We are not investigating whether sentences imposed on other offenders were appropriate.

5. No merit has been disclosed in the application and we refuse leave out of time to appeal. As it was an application without the slightest merit, we shall order that three months of the time the Applicant has spent in custody pending this hearing shall not count towards his sentence.