THE QUEEN v. TANG WING SING

_______

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Cons, V,-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. Tang Wing Sing pleaded guilty in the District Court to 11 counts of obtaining property by deception and 4 counts of evading liability by deception. The sentence imposed on each count was 5 yeas imprisonment, with all the periods being ordered to run concurrently.

2. He now applies for leave to appeal against those sentences.

3. Tang set up his own business in the silk trade in 1985. The business was apparently successful at first, but foundered later. The reason seems to be attributable mainly, if not entirely, to the extravagant life style that he then chose to adopt. He began selling at a loss in order to meet his mounting debts and in 1987 set up a larger company, at the suggestion - so he told the Probation Officer - of one of his creditors, to obtain goods which he would immediately resell, still at a lower price, and thus maintain a cash flow. However the means of obtaining the goods were cheques which he knew would not be met. He was robbing Peter to pay Paul; but it was quite clear that he had no prospect whatsoever of eves being able to pay Peter. In than sense his conduct was quite deliberate it cost his new creditors some 6½ million dollars.

4. Tang Wing Sing is single, aged 25, and has a clear record. Taking those matters, and what he saw as financial pressures, into account, the judge concluded than a proper starting point for an overall sentence would be 7 years. He then discounted that to 5 years because of the plea of guilty.

5. Mr. Pedruco has criticised the starting point as being too high. He has referred us to two reported decisions of this Court, Wong Hung Bui v. The Queen Criminal Appeal No. 579/88 and Chung Chiu Fat v. The Queen Criminal Appeal No. 402/86. However, the former is a case of a quite different kind the second has been overtaken by more recent decisions of this Court.

6. Mr. Pedruco has also expanded upon several other points in a very laudable attempt to put a favourable gloss upon Tang's conduct. None of them, with respect, are of any real assistance to us. Commercial undertakings are part of the lifeblood of this Colony and it is essential to see that, as far as possible, they are conducted honestly. In all the circumstances we cannot say that 5 years was excessive or manifestly unjust. For these reasons the application is refused.