Man Ching-ip and Others v. The Queen

CACC000543/1980

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

Coram: Huggins, Li, JJ.A. and Silke, J.

Date of Judgment: 11th December 1980

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J.A.:

1. The 5th Defendant and the 7th Defendant appeal against their sentences. The 5th Defendant was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment for possession of forged banknotes and five and a half years' imprisonment on a second count for the same offence. The 7th Defendant was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment for possession of forged banknotes and five years' imprisonment on five charges of possession of implements for forgery, forged revenue paper and a further charge of forged banknotes.

2. The contention put forward by Mr. Sedgwick is that the 5th Defendant was unduly heavily punished in view of the fact that, as is submitted, the Defendant received the goods innocently in the first instance. The 4th Defendant is alleged by both these Defendants to have been the ring-leader and to have induced them to take part in the offences. The 4th Defendant brought one consignment of forged banknotes in cartons to the 5th Defendant's factory. The statement of the 5th Defendant is unfortunately not entirely clear, but it does suggest that after the first consignment had been received, he ascertained that there were forged banknotes in it and that, subsequently, having been induced to commit an offence by retaining these banknotes, he, in effect, thought he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and proceeded to accept with knowledge a second consignment. That is as we see this statement. Therefore it is not a case where the Defendant received all the goods innocently and then only kept them after he had discovered the criminality involved. Nevertheless, we think that this sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment in the circumstances is higher than was justified. This man played a smaller part than several of the other persons convicted in the case and we think that a sentence of three years' imprisonment on the sixth count would be justified. We, therefore, allow his appeal and substitute such a sentence.

3. As to the 7th Defendant, the learned judge obviously made an error. The 7th Defendant is a printer and he was found in possession of implements for forgery and of paper for forgery. Nevertheless, that does not justify the learned judge in saying

"Now you are the printer of these notes and without your skill and expertise the whole operation could never have started."

It is true, again, that counsel for the Crown did open the case on the basis that the 7th Defendant was the printer, but the evidence did not support that and the charges did not justify the leading of such evidence. This Defendant was in possession of a less quantity of forged notes than was the 4th Defendant. The learned judge, however, did not - and probably he should have done-decide who was the ring-leader. The 7th Defendant was in possession not only of banknotes but also of implements for forgery. That was a matter which might have justified a higher overall sentence than if there had been merely possession of forged banknotes, but the highest sentence was imposed for the possession of the forged banknotes. For that this Accused received the same sentence as the 4th Defendant. We think that, in all the circumstances, that was not justified and we allow his appeal to the extent that the sentence on the seventh count, i.e. possession of forged banknotes, is also reduced to one of five years' imprisonment.

11th December 1980.

Representation: