R. v. LEUNG SO LEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 724

(Criminal)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of using a false instrument contrary to s73 of the Crimes Ordinance Cap 200: one count of obtaining property by deception and three counts of theft. She was sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment. She now seeks leave to appeal against this sentence.

2. According to the agreed facts the applicant together with D1 in the proceedings below devised a scam whereby applications were made to banks for credit cards in the name of another person and when the cards were obtained they would be used to obtain either cash or merchandise from retailers. D1 absconded and was not present at the trial.

3. D1 would appear to have been the prime mover in this scam. He represented to one of his friends that he was able to invest moneys for him. On this pretext he obtained from his friend his identity card and bank statements. These were used as supporting evidence to obtain credit cards in the friend's name.

4. On 12 December 1995 the applicant used a letter of authorisation purportedly signed by the friend to collect a Mastercard for D1 and obtain a supplementary or satellite card for herself on the representation that she was the wife of the said friend. She used the card to purchase a gold necklace which is valued $5,100.

5. All of the charges arose out of a similar pattern of conduct.

6. The total amount of cash involved for this applicant was $28,000 and there was also the necklace which has been referred to.

7. The applicant is a lady who is aged 35. At the time of the offences she was working in a Karaoke bar. It would appear from the mitigation which was submitted on her behalf at the trial that her problem was gambling. She had contracted heavy gambling debts and was in the clutches of loan sharks.

8. The sole ground of appeal advanced on her behalf is that while she was given credit for her guilty pleas the judge did not appear to have given her any credit to the assistance she had given the police. It was as a consequence of the information provided by the applicant that the police had been able to locate D1. She had also offered to testify against him. This had not been possible on account of his absconding prior to the trial.

9. This is a question which has to be considered on the merits of each case. If the amount of assistance is limited basically to information contained in a cautioned statement describing the circumstances of the offence it would be unusual that anything more than the usual 1/3 discount would be given.

10. If however as a separate exercise an offer is made to provide assistance to the police and worthwhile information is forthcoming it may well be the case that an additional discount would be given.

11. In the present case the assistance which has been given would appear to fall more into the former category than the latter.

12. There would not appear to be sufficient reason here to justify more than the usual discount. In addition to this it needs to be borne in mind that the total sentence imposed was a lenient one having regard to the gravity of the offences. This application is refused.