HKSAR v. WONG CHI WING

HCMA 543/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. hcma 543 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 2938 OF 2006)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  This Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to 15 charges of Fraud and 2 charges of Forgery.  The fraud charges all related to the obtaining of placement fees from Philippine domestic helpers by his making false representations that he was operating a genuine employment agency and was able to secure employment for them.

2.  The forgery charges related to the making of 2 sets of purportedly genuine certifications by the Philippine Consulate and contracts of employment.

3.  The offences were committed over a period of one year from October 2004 to October 2005 and the total amount obtained by the Appellant was $48,000.00.

4.  The Magistrate in sentencing had taken into account that the Appellant admitted the offences when interviewed by police after arrest.  He was told in mitigation that the Appellant suffers from hypertension and diabetes and is receiving medication for both conditions.

5.  He noted the Appellant’s previous record.  In 1990, he was given a suspended prison sentence for theft.  In 1995, he was given concurrent prison sentences of 2 years for 8 charges of obtaining property by deception.  The Magistrate was told that the circumstances were very similar to those of the present case.  The Magistrate noted that the instant offences required some degree of planning and the Appellant was able to arrange for the preparation of forged documentation.

6.  The Magistrate took a starting point of 12 months in respect of each offence.  He gave a ⅓ discount for the plea which reduced the sentences to 8 months.  He took the totality of the sentences into account.  The Appellant was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment on the 1^st charge and 1 month consecutively for each of charges 2-17.  This made up the total sentence of two years imprisonment, against which the Appellant now appeals.

7.  The Appellant complained that the Magistrate had not given him a ⅓ discount but it is quite clear from the transcript of the sentencing that he had done so.

8.  I considered the totality of sentence.  I do not find it is excessive or wrong in principle.  These were particularly nasty offences victimising people who are in a very vulnerable position in Hong Kong society.  The Appellant said he committed these offences because he had been in financial difficulties for a year prior to their commission.  That is an explanation not mitigation.  This was a repeat offence.

9.  The Appellant’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.