KU SIU-YEE v. THE QUEEN

CACC001020/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No. 1020

 

BETWEEN
	KU Siu-yee	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Morley-John, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th October, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 17 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. He now appeals against this sentence on the grounds that the sentence was too severe.

2. The appellant is fifty-eight years of age and has four previous convictions involving dishonesty but these convictions were of offences of a minor nature and his last conviction for giving false information to a pawnbroker took place nine years ago in 1967.

3. The appellant stated that he had a son of fifteen years of age and, if he, the father, went to prison for any length of time, there would be no one to look after the boy. I consider that the appellant should have thought of this before he committed the offence.

4. In his statement of findings the learned magistrate in considering what penalty to impose said that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty unless it could be shown that "the defendant's assets were very substantial". I trust that this should not be taken as an indication on the part of the learned magistrate that rich offenders are fined and poor offenders are sent to prison. When considering the imposition of a fine the offender's financial situation should only be taken into account when considering the amount of the fine to be imposed. The learned magistrate then considered a bond or probation but stated that taking the appellant's age and experience into consideration such methods of punishment would be futile. There is no indication as to what experience the learned magistrate was referring to. Last the learned magistrate stated that he considered that it would not have been appropriate to suspend the appellant's sentence. In all the circumstances of this case I am of the opinion that the more correct sentence for this offence should be one of six months' imprisonment, and this appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of twelve months be reduced to one of six months.

 

 

	(M. Morley-John, J.)
	High Court Judge.

 

Representation:

The appellant in person.

Mr. T.H. Gall for the Crown/respondent.