THE QUEEN v. CHOW YUNG
HTML content
CACC000139/1985
1985, No. 139 (Criminal) |
Headnote
Terms of imprisonment imposed in Hong Kong - whether detention in Brisbane awaiting extradition to Hong Kong should be taken into account.
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1985, No. 139 (Criminal) |
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
and
CHOW YUNG |
---------
Coram: Li, V.-P., Yang, J.A. & Hunter, J.
Date of hearing: 28th June, 1985.
Date of delivery of judgment: 28th June, 1985.
__________
JUDGMENT
__________
Yang, J.A.:
1. The Defendant Chow Yung was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Cathay Pacific Airways Local Staff Union. The members who were employees of Cathay Pacific paid various sums of money into the savings account of the Union. This money was of course Union property.
2. Over a long period of time by some clever device which is not necessary for us to go into today, the Applicant using his position as Chairman of the Executive Committee managed to steal on 24 occasions various sums of money totaling some $407,000. When the theft was discovered the Applicant decamped to America. Eventually, he went to Brisbane, Australia where he surrendered himself to the Australian police. After his surrender, he was detained for 9 weeks before he was extradited to Hong Kong.
3. This morning the Applicant asked the Court's mercy and said that his wife had divorced him. He has a mother and a young son of five to look after. He asked the Court to reduce-the total sentence of 3 years. He also asked that the 9 weeks which were spent in custody in Brisbane be taken into account.
4. Having regard to the large sum of money which has been stolen from his fellow workers over a long period of time as being consistent with premeditation, and to the fact that none of the money was returned to the Union, and further having regard to the fact that the Applicant used his position of trust to facilitate his thefts, we do not think that the totality of 3 years imposed on the 24 charges of theft was a day too long. However, it would be proper for the trial Judge to have taken into account the 9 weeks which he had spent in custody in Australia. It is only to this extent then we are prepared to interfere with the sentence.
5. The application is therefore allowed and treated as an appeal against sentence. The appeal is allowed and we would substitute a sentence of 2 years and 10 months on each of the 24 charges, sentences to run concurrently, for that of 3 years.
| T.L. Yang Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr. Chow Yung, Applicant in person.
Mr. Jackson, Crown Counsel for Respondent.