The Queen v. Mazi Run Nacoka
|
CACC000080/1985
BETWEEN
_________________ Coram: Hon. Li, V.-P., & Barker, J. A. Date of hearing: 3 May 1985 Date of judgment: 3 May 1985 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Barker, J.A. : 1. The applicant in this case applies for leave to appeal against sentences totalling in all six years' imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to four charges, one of possessing implements for forgery of banknotes, secondly for possession of forged banknotes, thirdly for possession of forged travel documents namely passports and fourthly possession of a forged seal. 2. He is a man of hitherto exemplary character born in Bolivia, educated in Brazil and Argentina and having set up a successful business in Brazil. He came to Hong Kong where unfortunately for him he was introduced to a businessman called HO Cheuk-kwan, a man about whom probably the less said the better since last week we. ordered a retrial in respect of his conviction on charges of forgery. 3. What is clear in this case is that the applicant lent HO Cheuk-kwan HK$300,000 and has never been repaid for it because HO Cheuk-kwan's business failed. HO Cheuk-kwan informed this applicant that he had no realistic prospect of repaying his debt . and the only worthwhile asset he possessed was a quantity of equipment usable for the purpose of forgery. Foolishly he accepted this equipment. He also acquired from HO a number of already forged notes and passports. Then he was introduced to a man called Siu Fu, an acquaintance of HO, and together with this man, it was agreed that they should make traveller's cheques and passports. He was subsequently introduced to the second defendant who originally applied for leave to appeal against his sentence but has abandoned that appeal and it was the second defendant who was the master printer and did the printing. And together, they printed a large quantity of traveller's cheques, some of them defective, some of them not. $500,000 worth of traveller's cheques were taken away by Siu Fu and presumably put into circulation and for that the defendant received $50,000 in cash. There was found at his premises a number of passports, in all a hundred passports were produced but some of these were defective and were burned. Of the 51 passports that were found by the police, some of those had been actually produced by HO and had not been produced by the accused but were in his possession and he knew that they had been forged. 4. For these offences, the judge imposed sentences, as I have said, totally in all six years and it has been urged upon us that having regard to all the circumstances these sentences were excessive. 5. The applicant is an educated man with degrees and fluent in five languages. As Mr. Plowman has rightly pointed out, one of the tragedies of this case is that ten days prior to his arrest, this accused was married to a Chinese girl, an air-hostess, and the evidence of his remorse is forthcoming not only from his plea of guilty and his co-operation with the police and his frank admissions in his cautioned statements but also from the document, the letter which he wrote to his wife when he was arrested and the end of his statement which he made to the Commercial Crime Bureau. In all the circumstances we have come to the conclusion that these sentences are excessive. Accordingly, we shall grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, we shall treat the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal and we shall impose the following sentences. On count 3, for possession of. implements for forgery, the sentence of three years' imprisonment is to stand. . On count 4, for possession of forged banknotes, we set aside the sentence of six years and impose instead a sentence of four years. On count 5, for possession of forged travel documents, we set aside the sentence of five years and impose a sentence of four years and on count 6, for possession, of a false seal, the sentence of two years imprisonment is to stand. All the sentences are to run concurrently and therefore the total sentence will of one of four years' imprisonment, Representation: G. Plowman (Edmund W.H. Chow & Co.) for appellent. T.R.W. Jenkyn-Jones for Crown/Respondent. |