HUI SHUI CHEUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000641/1976
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| 1976 No. 641 | |
| (Criminal) |
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| HUI SHUI CHEUNG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 9th July 1976.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of obtaining money by deception and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment upon each charge, such sentences to run consecutively. He appeals against sentence.
2. The appellant had been in the habit of collecting, from an office of the Social Welfare Department, a monthly grant on behalf of his brother-in-law who was elderly and incapable of collecting the money himself. On 9th September 1974 the brother-in-law died but on the 12th of that month the appellant went to the Social Welfare Office and collected the usual allowance of $180. On 12th October he similarly collected a further $180. It was in respect of these incidents that he was charged. During the course of their coming to light the appellant disappeared from his home and was not arrested until 19th May of this year.
3. The learned magistrate rightly took the view that the appellant had deliberately set out to cheat the Social Welfare Department. Whilst that is undoubtedly true this was a small scale deception practised by an offender with clear record and, from the report of the Probation Officer, under the spur of the need to obtain additional nutritious diets for his wife who was then pregnant and suffering from anaemia. It was also brought to my notice that since the date of the offence his wife had tendered the $360 to the Social Welfare Office but that her offer had, for some reason or other, been refused.
4. As I have said the appellant is a first offender; there is no necessity for personal deterrence; nor is the offence a common one so that there is equally no necessity for deterrence to other possible offenders. In all the circumstances it appeared to me that sentences totalling six months' imprisonment were excessive and I allowed the appeal, set aside the sentences and substituted them by such sentence as would result in the appellant's immediate release, he having already been in custody for seven weeks.
Representation:
Miss Trieu (D.L.A.) assigned for appellant.
Reid, C.C., for respondent.