TAM LAI-KAI v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000953/1976
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1976 No. 953 |
| BETWEEN | ||
| ----------------- | ||
| TAM LAI-KAI | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 23rd September, 1976.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The appellant was charged with two offences of obtaining by deception and one of an attempt so to obtain money. To these offences he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months imprisonment on each of the obtaining charges and to three months imprisonment on the attempt charge, all those sentences to run consecutively. He appeals against sentence.
2. The facts relating to the first charge were that the appellant called at the home of a householder in a resettlement estate and stated that he was a staff member of a named electrical company and offered to service the householder's television set for $40. The householder required the appellant to satisfy him as to the appellant's identity whereupon the appellant produced three free service warrants of the company he had named. The householder permitted the appellant to work on the television set but, being suspicious, telephoned the police whilst this was happening. Upon the arrival of the police the appellant admitted that he was not a staff member of the named electrical company. During the course of further enquiries the appellant admitted that by using the same device he had obtained payment of a sum of $85 from another householder and $75 from yet another.
3. It is clear that the television set involved in the third offence was never repaired because the appellant was interrupted by the police whilst working on it. There is no direct evidence as to whether the sets involved in the first two charges were actually repaired or not but there is a strong presumption that they were for otherwise the appellant would not have been paid the two sums of $85 and $75. In other words the deception was extremely light. The appellant was not pretending to be a person competent to repair television sets whereas in fact he was not so competent. His deception was merely a statement that he came from a named electrical company. That is a matter which may have weighed with some householders but have concerned others not at all. Many television owners would be interested not from where the individual came but in whether or not he was capable of repairing the set.
4. In these circumstances it appeared to me that sentences totally 15 months imprisonment were unduly high, a view in which counsel for the Crown concurred. I therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the sentences totally 15 months imprisonment and substituted them with sentences of 3 months imprisonment on each charge, those sentences to run concurrently.
Representation:
Appellant in person.
Caird, counsel for the Crown/respondent.