THE QUEEN v. HAU KAN SHING

HCMA000576/1985

IN THE SUPREME CURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Appeal No. 576 of 1985

____________

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	and
	HAU Kan-shing	Appellant
	_________

Coram: Hon. Rhind, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 5th August 1985

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. Within the month of October 1984, the appellant a 28-year-old man, cheated a 19-year-old man out of a total sum of HK$15,000 by making false representations about their entering into a partnership to operate a cleaning company together.

2. As to $6,000 of the total involved, the appellant deceived his victim into postponing the repayment of that debt on three occasions in October 1984. That gave rise to Three separate charges of evasion of liability by deception contrary to section 18B(1)(b) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. As to the balance, $2,000 was obtained from the victim on the 19th October, another $2,000 on the 20th October and the remaining $5,000 on the 27th October. That resulted in three separate charges of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17 of the Theft Ordinance.

3. The appellant pleaded guilty to all six charges. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrent on each of the three charges of evasion of liability by deception and he was given consecutive sentences of six months imprisonment each on two of the charges of obtaining property by deception. On the remaining charge of obtaining property by deception he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrent. Therefore, his effective sentence was 18 months' imprisonment.

4. The appellant is a married man living with his wife and children aged 9 and 3. He supports his family. By occupation, he is a cleaning worker earning $1,800 per month. The proceeds of his present crimes were used to repay loan sharks. His only previous conviction was for common assault when he was fined $250 in December 1983.

5. Although this was a mean little fraud, I did not consider that it merited an overall sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. By the standards of fraud in Hong Kong, $15,000 is not a vast amount of money, and, under the tariff, effective sentences of 18 months are normally reserved for those who have dishonestly obtained sums of money 10 times or more in excess of what was involved here.

6. The learned Magistrate was correct in principle to impose imprisonment, but I think the justice of the case is met by an effective sentence of six months' imprisonment. To bring this about, I have varied the sentence by making all the terms run concurrently.

(J. J. Rhind) Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. J. Bessell, Crown Counsel for the Crown/Respondent

Hau Kan-shing, Appellant in person