The Queen v. Soliman B. Baig

CACC001017/1982

BETWEEN

-------

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang & Barker, JJ.A.

Date: 29th March 1983

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences of 2½ years imprisonment concurrent for uttering a forged document and possession of forged banknotes and 6 months' consecutive for possession of a forged travel document. Leave having been refused by the single judge, application is renewed to this court.

2. The Appellant is a Pakistani citizen. He is a tug master employed in Dubai. He is married to a Filipina who is living in the Philippines and who has recently given birth to a child. The Appellant took leave from his employment and was supplied by his employer with a ticket which took him from Dubai to Manila and back to Dubai via Hong Kong. He sought, while he was in Manila, to obtain an extension of his leave to be present at the time of his child's birth. He sent a cable but it would appear that that cable was sent the day after he had received a cable from Dubai telling him to report back. Again it would appear that, not having had a reply to his cable asking for an extension, he started on his return journey via Hong Kong. In Hong Kong he was arrested for having passed a forged US$100 banknote. The story which he tells, as I understand it, is this: that having come to Hong Kong he met somebody who asked him to take forged United States banknotes back to Manila. This must, therefore, have taken place after he had made a telephone call to Dubai and obtained an extension of his leave. He was also promised other things by this man but those other things were apparently not forthcoming and, according to the story which the Appellant tells, he thereupon decided to appropriate to himself one of the forged banknotes to use it in Hong Kong and thereby to make up for the purported loss of the other benefits which he had been promised.

3. Also he had in his possession, and had used for his journey to Hong Kong a false travel document - a Philippine passport. He was, however, the holder of a genuine Pakistan passport and, on the face of it, had no reason to use a forged passport. The forged document was a passport which he had obtained at considerable expense by way of payment of bribes and there appeared to be two possible reasons for his having acquired it. The first is that he may have thought in some way it would assist in obtaining access to the Philippines where his wife lived; but also there was evidence before the judge that Philippine citizens were paid at a higher rate in Dubai than were Pakistan citizens and it could be that he travelled on this forged Philippine document with the intention of supporting a claim to be paid in Dubai as a Philippine citizen. Whatever the purpose of the forged travel document we cannot think that a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment was in any way excessive on the third count.

4. The question is whether the other sentences were heavier than were justified. We have found this not an easy matter. What we have concluded is this that insufficient weight was given to what are bound to be the catastrophic results to the Appellant of what I will call his stupidity, for he is a man of some standing. He is now going to find great difficulty in returning to the Philippines where his wife lives. He is probably going to lose his job and may well find himself now forced to return to Pakistan after he has served what must inevitably be a term of imprisonment. In the result we propose to give leave to appeal, to allow the appeal and to substitute on the first two charges sentences of 18 months' concurrent to which the 6 months' will be consecutive, making a total of two years' rather than three years'.

29th March 1983.