THE QUEEN v. CHAN PO YEE

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

and

CHAN PO-YEE

Date: 9th June, 1987.

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Yang, Ag. C.J. -

1. On 1st August, 1986, the applicant pleaded guilty to four charges of procuring the execution of a valuable security, an offence contrary to section 22(2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2. Upon his pleas of guilty, Deputy District Judge T.S. Lee imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment on each charge, sentences to run concurrently. Earlier, a co-defendant (“D.1”) was convicted after trial on two charges of procuring the execution of a valuable security and the learned judge imposed a sentence of two years' on each count, sentences to run concurrently. He suspended the sentences for a maximum period of three years and ordered D.1 to pay $30,000 costs within one month.

3. Between 14th November, 1984 to 7th January, 1985, the applicant on three separate occasions and with a view to gain for his older cousin, one TAN Hung Phong, dishonestly procured the Wing On Shipping Company to execute a valuable security, namely, a Bill of Lading by making a false representation.

4. On 11th January, 1985, the applicant dishonestly procured the Deutsche Bank, Hong Kong Branch, to execute a credit advice to the amount of some $739,000 also by making a false representation.

5. The Judge, in considering sentence, took into consideration the pleas of guilty and a number of matters which had been placed before him in mitigation.

6. Counsel for the applicant referred to a number of what he described as particular circumstances relating to the applicant which merited, according to counsel, a more lenient sentence.

7. In our view, the disparity of sentences between those imposed upon D.1 and this applicant is one which justifies this court taking such measures as necessary to remove, as far as possible, the sense of grievance which the applicant must feel in the circumstances. We have in mind the well-known case of CHAN Ah Ching[1]. It is therefore: to reduce or eliminate any sense of grievance that might be felt, due to the disparity of sentence, that we are disposed to allow this application, treat this hearing as the appeal and reduce the sentence to one of two years' imprisonment on each charge, these sentences to run concurrently but suspended for a period of three years. We do not make any order for costs in this applicant's case.

Mr. J.D. Donnelly, Q.C. & Mr. J. Marray (Anthony Kwan & Co.) for Applicant

Mr. J. Sulan, Crown Counsel, for Crown

[1]  Cr. App. No. 53/86