HKSAR v. Ade Wilfred Marcus
|
CACC000618/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL 1997, No. 618
--------------------------------- Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. CJHC, Mayo and Stuart-Moore JJ.A. in Court Date of hearing: 19 February 1998 Date of delivery of judgment: 19 February 1998 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. In the afternoon of the 1st day of his trial before H.H. Judge Longley the Applicant changed his plea and pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain property by deception. He was thereupon sentenced to 2 years 3 months' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against this sentence. 2. The Applicant who is an African was a member of a syndicate which practised a scam which is all too common in this jurisdiction. They claimed to be able to print US$100 bills by attaching them to genuine one and applying a chemical process. It was claimed that this can only be done once for every genuine note and proposed victims are invited to make notes available for this purpose. They are told that their notes will be returned to them together with a percentage of the value of the new notes which are issued. In the present case the percentage was 40% and the total of notes to be supplied was to be US$1.25 million. Needless to say once the victim parted with his money, he would not see it again. 3. The main witness in this case, PW 1, an undercover police officer was introduced to the Applicant by an intermediary. There were discussions concerning the scheme. There was also a meeting in a flat which was attended by the Applicant and one of the Associates when a demonstration was given how the notes were made. 4. PW1 prevaricated and said that he could make no decision as his boss had gone to China. Eventually a raid was conducted at the premises where the demonstration had been held and the Applicant was arrested. 5. In his application the Applicant calls in aid his difficult family circumstances and the fact that he was not the main instigator of the scheme. 6. However, before us, he referred to another case where the defendants had received lighter sentences than those imposed on him. 7. He claimed that he had come here to do business. He had met a man called Henry. Henry asked him to introduce him to his other African friends. He was aware that the Africans were involved in fraudulent activities. Henry was a government informer and his friend Raymond was a police officer. He claimed that at the time of the demonstration he was only an observer. As he was a 1st offender he thought that he should receive lenient treatment. While he was away from the Cameroons his business had suffered. He was anxious to return. 8. It will be appreciated that some of this cannot be reconciled with the agreed facts which were admitted by the Applicant. 9. He said that he had pleaded guilty on his solicitor's advice. The solicitor said that the facts could be explained in mitigation. It is however significant that none of this was referred to in his grounds of appeal. 10. We do not agree to his resiling from his guilty plea which was clear and unequivocal. 11. The judge adopted a starting point of 3 years and gave the Applicant a 25% discount for his belated plea. 12. It cannot be said that a sentence of this order was in any way excessive or wrong in principle. 13. The application is bereft of merit and is dismissed. We also order that 3 months of the time he has spent in custody will not count as part of his sentence.
Representation: Mr. Albert Wong, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for Respondent Ade Wilfred Marcus, Applicant in person |