The Queen v. Surasak Sirichairat and Another

CACC000124/1985

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J. & Silke, J.A

Date of judgment: 1st August, 1985.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Roberts, C. J. -

1. The two applicants seek leave to appeal against sentences of two and a half years' imposed on them by a district judge, after they had pleaded guilty to a number of offences relating to the possession and uttering of forged passports.

2. The offences came to light as a result of an approach made by a police officer through an intermediary to the second defendant inquiring about the possibility of the purchase of forged passports. No doubt this approach was made because information had come to the police that the defendants were involved in that business.

3. It is not necessary for me to recite in detail the facts which were put before the district judge after agreement of them by the solicitor representing the defendants. Suffice it to say, that on the basis of the charges to which the two defendants pleaded guilty, the first defendant was in possession of four forged Singapore passports and seven forged Thai passports, three of the latter of which he was also convicted of uttering. He was, in addition, found in possession of equipment which could be used to impress on the forged passports various notations, for example, there was a Hong Kong Immigration Service chop; also a Bangkok Thailand Immigration chop.

4. There can be no doubt that these two defendants were knowingly taking part in a forged passport business of a not insubstantial nature.

5. The second defendant was convicted on his plea of possession of one forged passport and the uttering of three others. However, the second defendant played as active a part in these transactions as the first defendant and we see no reason to distinguish between the proper sentences which have been imposed on both of them.

6. It has been submitted to us that these defendants were merely carrying out the instructions of someone else and they were described as only "middle men". Whether or not they were acting on their own behalf or as agents for someone else, there is no doubt that they were extremely active. The agreed facts show them as undertaking substantial travel and as making the detailed arrangements necessary for those who were to travel from or through Hong Kong on the forged documents.

7. The manufacture and uttering of forged passports has serious repercussions so far as the ability of people to travel freely internationally is concerned.

8. While we accept that the passports were not manufactured in Hong Kong but in Thailand, nevertheless, in three cases, photographs were provided here for affixing to forged documents and it is clear that the equipment which were seized from the first defendant was to be used here.

9. Offences of this kind must be viewed seriously by the courts. Sentences of two and a half years are severe ones but we have no doubt that in the circumstances which I have described, they were entirely proper ones. Indeed, we would not have been surprised if the judge had imposed a higher sentence.

10. We do not think that there is any merit in these appeals and for that reason we dismiss the application and we order a loss of time of 120 days.

Representation:

Mr. J.G. Stevenson (R.J. Oliver & Co.) for both Appellants

Mr. G.J.X. McCoy, Ag. Senior Crown Counsel, for Respondent