THE QUEEN v. WONG SING TANG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF HONG KONG

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 1986

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Penlington, J.

1. The background of this case was that the victim was engaged in smuggling pearls from China to Hong Kong together with the applicant's brother, who was in China. The brother bought some pearls and entrusted them to the victim who in turn gave them to a courier-who, however, stole them. The brother was then in great difficulty as he still had to pay for the pearls and the applicant, together with 2 other men, took him to a flat where he was detained for a period of 3 days. He complained of being assaulted during that period and some degree of force was used but the trial judge found it was not as serious as the victim alleged. He was forced to sign an I. O. U.

2. The trial judge took into account the fact that the applicant had, to some extent anyway, abused and illtreated the victim. That was certainly a factor which aggravated the offence. We do not think that a sentence of 18 months imprisonment in the circumstances of this case was improper. There is a factor, however, which we do think is of importance in that as result of the conviction and the imprisonment, the applicant's family, a daughter of 5 and twin sons aged one, has been broken up. The applicant has now been in custody for a period of some 4½ months and it is the sort of case where the mere clang of the prison door behind him will act as a substantial deterrent to the applicant. He was reported on very favourably by the Probation Officer and clearly he is a hard working person, who has no previous convictions. He was acting quite wrongly, of course, but he was acting because he considered that his elder brother had been defrauded. We think that in all these circumstances, we could suspend the sentence of 18 months imprisonment and do so for a period of 1 year.