WONG TO WING v. THE QUEEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1973

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

BETWEEN
	WONG To-wing	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Rigby, C.J., Huggins and McMullin, JJ.

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Rigby, C.J.:

1.  The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of theft preferred against him. He was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on each charge, such sentences to run concurrently, and he now applies for leave to appeal against that sentence in its aggregate on the grounds that it is too severe.

2.  The facts are really quite remarkable. The appellant is twenty-two years of age. At the material time it would appear that he was employed as a trainee clerk and placed in charge of the Foreign Money Changing Section of the Mongkok Branch of the Hongkong Industrial and Commercial Bank. Whilst in such employment he engaged in speculation on the Stock Exchange Market over a period of 8-9 months. On the 1^st, 2^nd and 12^th of November, 1972 – he was able to present vouchers to the Cashier in the Accounts Section of that Bank and draw on those voucher, the respective sums in cash of $151,990.90, $124,750.00 and $49,563.15. Incredible though it may appear, no cheques or drafts were paid in by the accused to cover these sums of money and they were apparently handed over to him without any form of security being either received or requested.

3.  It really does seem to this Court quite remarkable that a young man of this age should have been placed in such a position of trust as to enable him in this manner to draw these sums of money. Subsequently, these defalcations came to light and the appellant was taxed with what he had done. He repaid to the Bank some $22,386 in cash and handed over, we are told, some 1,500 Hong Kong Land Investment Shares, the value of which, at the time he handed them over, was then approximately $165,000. Whilst it has no material relevance to the nature of the offence we are informed that those shares have gone up so much in value that the Bank have now gained on the defalcations carried out by the appellant and are better off than when the money was originally taken.

4.  The appellant was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on each charge. We appreciate, of course, that he was placed in a position of trust and he has grossly abused that position. It does seem to us, however, a matter for critical comment that a young man of this age should ever have been put in such a position. At the material time he was drawing a salary of $885 per month.

5.  In our view the sentence imposed was inordinately severe. We take the view that, in effect, these three offences committed over this short period of time were one and the same offence and that the subsequent acts of drawing the further sums of money on the 2^nd and 12^th November, were really part and parcel of that same offence. In the circumstances of this case, in our view, the appropriate sentence was one of fifteen months’ imprisonment on each charge such sentences to run concurrently. The appeal will, accordingly, be allowed to that extent.