HKSAR v. FONG KOON WAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 23
(Criminal)

-------------------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mortimer V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was convicted of 13 offences of using a false instrument before His Honour Judge Christie on 17 December 1997 in the District Court and was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment.

2. The offences can be briefly described. The offences arise from his employment as a property manager. The company he worked for was Bowen Apartments. Tenants of those apartments were entitled to refunds of deposits. It was his duty as property manager to deliver cheques for the amounts of those deposits less any deductions. He failed to do so and kept the money. That is the foundation of the offences in which he obtained money on cheques. The amounts varied but the offences charged took place between 13 April 1993 and 13 May 1996 and involved some $1.6m. They were offences on which the judge had little difficulty in convicting the applicant. So the sentences passed were sentences after trial.

3. In sentencing the applicant the judge took into account all the facts, the amount involved, the period over which the offences were committed and came to the conclusion - rightly as far as we can see - that the only mitigation that could be advanced was that the applicant was 44 years of age and had previously led a blameless life. In spite of the nature of the offences which involved a breach of trust, he thought it right to discount the sentence because of that good character. In the result he passed a sentence of one year and 8 months imprisonment on charge 12 which involved $262,000 - the highest sum in any charge. On all the other charges he passed a sentence of one year imprisonment concurrent. But the sentence of one year and 8 months imprisonment and the sentence of one year concurrent on the other charges were made consecutive, making two years eight months imprisonment in all.

4. The applicant in seeking leave to appeal advances problems which he has faced consequent upon his conviction since he went to prison. The consequence is to his family in particular. We are sympathetic towards people who find themselves in the applicant's position. But the discount for his good character was given. In spite of the plea he makes, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is wholly without merit. So the application for leave is refused.

5. Having regard to the fact that it is wholly without merit and should never have come before the court, we order that three months of the time waiting for appeal will not count towards his sentence.