The Queen v. Trevor Andrew Stannard

CACC000256/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Huggins, V.-P., Kempster, J.A. & Macdougall, J.

Date of Hearing: 14th August 1986

____________

JUDGMENT

____________

Kempster, J.A.:

1. On 21st August 1981 Trevor Andrew Stannard came to Hong Kong presumably in search of employment. He was a graduate and a surveyor.

2. Almost immediately after his arrival Stannard embarked on a fraudulent course of conduct running up bills in first class hotels and buying expensive articles with the aid of an American Express Card to which he was not entitled. The total sum involved well exceeded $80,000.

3. As was perhaps inevitable Stannard was arrested but he absconded from the Territory in breach of his bail and, via Thailand, went to Taiwan where he embarked upon a further course of fraud there contrived by the use of traveller's cheques to which he was not entitled. He was duly convicted and imprisoned. On his release he was deported to Hong Kong where he was dealt with by Judge Cameron at Victoria District Court on 7th May of this year. Having pleaded guilty to five charges arising from his 1981 frauds the judge sentenced him to a total of 12 months imprisonment and pursuant to section 21 of the Immigration Ordinance recommended that he should be deported from the Territory. Against that sentence he seeks the leave of this Court to appeal.

4. A number of matters are advanced on Stannard's behalf. Rather faintly it is suggested that we should give weight to the fact that the conditions under which he was imprisoned in Taiwan were singularly rigorous. We decline to do so. Further or alternatively it is submitted that a sentence of 12 months imprisonment exceeds the sort of sentence which in 1981 was being passed for equivalent offences. Doing the best we can with the assistance of the research conducted by Mr. Spicer, who has had a very difficult case to argue on the applicant's behalf, we are in no way convinced that the sentence exceeded what was then appropriate; particularly after 55 other offences had been taken into consideration.

5. A question has arisen as to the necessity for a separate sentence as a condition precedent to a recommendation for deportation but no point is made on subsection 2 of section 21. In our views a separate sentence was not mandatory but, like the recommendation itself, fully justified in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.

6. In the event we find that this application for leave to appeal against sentence has no merit and must be dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. R. Spicer for Appellant

Mr. A.A. Bruce for Crown