R. v. WONG SIU KAI and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.357
(Criminal)

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicants Wong Siu-kai and Wong Siu-wah are brothers. Each faced a count of attempting to obtain property by deception and a count of common assault. The 1st applicant also faced a count of possession of an identity card relating to another person and five counts of obtaining property by deception. The 2nd applicant also faced a charge of possession of a false instrument and four counts of obtaining property by deception. They pleaded guilty to all charges and were each sentenced to an overall period of imprisonment of three years and three months.

2. The facts revealed that on 30th September they were shopping in the electrical appliance section of Yaohan Department Store. They attempted to purchase a video cassette recorder with a fake Chase Manhattan Mastercard. The salesman became suspicious and called security guards. The 1st applicant then produced an identity card in the name of Leung Tin-yin. This was the charge of possession of an identity card relating to another person, the second charge which he faced. The two applicants then tried to escape. One of the security guards tried to stop them and was assaulted by them, this gave rise to the fourth charge, the assault charge. The police were called and they searched the applicants and from the 2nd applicant was found a fake Shanghai Commercial Bank Mastercard. Also found was a Chase Manhattan credit card. Investigations revealed that the Chase Manhattan Card had been used three times on the 28th and twice on the 29th of September 1993 to pay for services or purchases. The 1st applicant admitted using that card. Investigations revealed that the Shanghai Commercial Bank Mastercard had been used three times on 27th and once on the 30th to obtain goods. The 2nd applicant admitted using that card.

3. The applicants today have indicated that they feel remorse for what they did and have asked for leniency to be shown on humanitarian grounds.

4. The trial judge when sentencing said that he bore in mind the ages of the applicants, 25 and 27, their previous convictions - D1 had previous convictions for only assault and resisting arrest but the 2nd applicant had previous convictions for theft, forgery and burglary. He accepted that they were working for a person called Ah Fei. Having considered those facts, he was satisfied to impose sentences which, overall, amounted, in each case, to three years and three months.

5. Today the applicants have urged that other persons in other cases involving the misuse of credit cards have been sentenced more leniently than they were. Each case depends upon its facts. Given the number of offences and the fact that they were allied with offences with violence, we are not persuaded that the overall sentence of three years and three months was in any way wrong. We do not consider that there is any ground which would allow us properly to interfere.

6. Before leaving the matter we indicate that we would have been assisted in coming to our decision in this appeal had the trial judge indicated the starting point which he used before imposing the sentences which he did.

7. The applications are refused.