HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1988

THE QUEEN v. LAM PUI CHUN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
1783-EN-1989-08-25

THE QUEEN v. LAM PUI CHUN

HTML content

CACC000206/1988

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1988, No. 206

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

LAM PUI CHUN

---------------

Coram: Cons, Ag. C.J. , Power &, Macdougall, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 25 August 1989

Date of delivery of judgment: 25 August 1989

---------------------

J U D G M E N T

---------------------

 

Cons, Ag. C.J., delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. LAM Pui Chun was convicted before Judge D'Almada Remedios in the District Court of six charges of obtaining by false pretences. On each occasion she had obtained money from one or other of the two victims, to a total of a few dollars less than 180,000, by falsely pretending to enter with them into joint ventures for the purchase and subsequent resale of either ginseng, abalone or other marin products. The victims were two doctors who ran a clinic which the Defendant patronized and with whom she eventually became friends. The judge sentenced her on each of the six charges to eight months' imprisonment to run consecutively, thus making a total of four years. She now applies for leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The judge's reasons for sentence are short and make no mention of any mitigation. That may well have been because none was put to him, for really there is nothing that can be said in her favour. She did not plead guilty. She has apparently made no restitution or even any offer to do so.

3. Our attention has been drawn to various cases which have some similarities by way of the nature of the charges and it is suggested that they indicate four years in total as being unduly high. Offence of this kind vary tremendously in their circumstances. We do not think that four years in this particular case is manifestly excessive. We accept that it is on the high side, but we do not think it is so high that we should interfere. The application is therefore refused.

(D. Cons)

(N.P. Power)

(Neil Macdougall)

Acting Chief Justice

Justice of Appeal

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

I.G. Cross & Miss C Fung Crown Prosecutor for the 'Respondent

Ronald Mayne D.L.A. for the Appellant (re sentence)