Attorney General v. Tse Shing-ming
|
CAAR000015/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 15 OF 1973 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 6th November, 1973. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The respondent in this case was found guilty of being in possession of forged dies contrary to section 76(2) of the Crimes Ordinance. The particulars of the offence were that he had in his possession four chops, purporting to be chops of the Passport Office, Penang, Malaysia, i.e. one forged chop for the words "PASSPORT OFFICE MALAYSIA PENANG"; a second forged chop for the words "PASSPORT OFFICER PENANG"; the third forged chop bore the signature of a Passport Officer authorised to sign Malaysian passports on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia; and, finally, one forged chop for the words "No children accompanying". 2. The respondent is a travel agent and in his office the police found a considerable quantity of miscellaneous material and equipment capable of being used for tampering with travel documents. In addition, there was found a blank Taiwanese passport and when he was searched, further incriminating documents were discovered on his person. These included five photostat copies of various pages of Malaysian passports and other similar documents. 3. The respondent pleaded guilty and admitted the facts and the magistrate sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years. The magistrate was of the opinion that the correct punishment for the offence was a fine but he considered that he was powerless to impose a fine by reason of the wording of the Ordinance. With respect, we consider that he did have power to impose a fine under sections 92 and 97 of the Magistrates Ordinance. 4. Mr. Sceats for the Attorney General. told the court that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and with that view we are disposed to agree. This is an offence which clearly merits a custodial sentence in view of the fact that it is concerned with possible forgery of travel documents which may well result in persons entering a foreign country, Malaysia, who are not bona fide travellers. The position of the respondent as a travel agent makes the offence more serious. 5. Mr. Sedgwick, for the respondent, addressed the court in mitigation and suggested that justice would be done if a fine were imposed in place of the suspended sentence of imprisonment. With this we cannot agree. We think that the proper sentence should be one of nine months' imprisonment from today's date. 6. The respondent was not present in court when this order was made and so we ordered a warrant to be issued for his arrest. It follows, therefore, that the application by the Crown is granted and that a term of nine months' imprisonment will be substituted for the sentence imposed by the magistrate.
Representation: B.A. Sceats for Applicant/Attorney General. Sedgwick (Samuel Soo & Co.) for Respondent. |