THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHIU TIN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.581
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary JA:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. It comes to us from the District Court.

2. The applicant is a man in his early 30's.

3. He faced a total of eight charges, being: one charge of blackmail; one charge of theft; and six charges of obtaining property by deception. There were two cases: Case No. 865 of 1993 and Case No. 707 of 1994. All but one of the charges were laid in the former. The one laid in the latter was one of the obtaining property by deception charges.

4. In all, the victims were deprived of over $2 million, none of which has been recovered. Some of the later offences were committed while the applicant was on bail for some of the earlier ones. And the applicant had previous convictions for theft, criminal damage and obtaining property by deception.

5. On August 8 last year, he pleaded guilty before HH Judge Jackson to all eight charges.

6. Sentence was passed on the 22nd of that month.

7. The mitigation available to the applicant was constituted by his guilty pleas and the help which he gave to the authorities.

8. In passing sentence, the judge said that he would have passed a total sentence of "about seven years" but for those pleas and such help.

9. Taking them into account, he passed a total sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment.

10. That total was reached thus. Starting with Case No. 865 of 1993, the judge imposed: concurrent terms of nine months on charges 1 and 2; concurrent terms of 15 months on charges 3 and 4; concurrent terms of 18 months on charges 5 and 6; and a term of three years on charge 7. On the sole charge in Case No. 707 of 1994, a term of three years was imposed. The two terms of three years each were made concurrent. The terms of 9 months, 15 months and 18 months were made consecutive, giving a total of 3½ years. That total was not increased by the 3-year terms since they were made concurrent not only with each other but with all the other terms as well.

11. The point taken on behalf of the applicant is that he was given insufficient discount for the information which he gave the authorities. Such information was given, the judge accepted, at considerable risk to the applicant and his family.

12. The result of the information given is summarised thus in the second of the Perfected Grounds of Appeal Against Sentence.

"(a) the arrest and conviction of an armed bank robber and the arrest of the same robber for numerous robberies with weapons of women;

(b) the locating and trial of a fraudster who had absconded;

(c) the identification of a culprit and the reopening of a case involving a robbery, false imprisonment and gang rape;

(d) the arrest of 2 illegal immigrants who had come to Hong Kong to commit, but who had not yet committed, robberies with firearms and explosives"

 

13. We know that the bank robber has drawn 11 years' imprisonment. The fraudster who had absconded was in fact acquitted. The person involved in the robbery, false imprisonment and gang rape is now hiding in, it is believed, China. And as far as the illegal immigrants who came to Hong Kong with a firearm and explosives are concerned, their trial is pending. As a result of the information given by the applicant, they were, we are told, arrested in a hotel room in which were found a loaded pistol and five improvised explosive devices.

14. When the whole of the circumstances are taken into account, it is apparent that the 50% discount extended to this applicant was insufficient. For he seems to have prevented crimes infinitely more serious than the ones which he himself committed. And we are disposed to agree with his counsel that a sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment is what he should be left with.

15. We propose to achieve that in this way. The terms of 9 months, 15 months and 18 months will not be disturbed. The 3½-year terms will be reduced to 2½ years each. And we will make all the terms concurrent so that the sentence will be 2½ years' imprisonment in all.

16. Treating the application for leave as the appeal itself, we allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to 2½ years' imrpisonment in the manner indicated.