THE QUEEN v. LEE AH-LENG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

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

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of three years' imprisonment for handling stolen goods. The facts were that an American corporation had reason to believe that goods were being stolen in large quantities from their factory in Penang. They employed an investigator who sought to find evidence of the offences and to recover the goods. He got in touch, in Penang, with the Appellant who ran an electronics factory there and whom he suspected might have knowledge of the stolen goods, which were electronic components. The investigator offered to buy a large quantity of components and an arrangement was made whereby the Appellant would obtain them, bring them to Hong Kong and hand them over. A quantity of electronic parts valued at something in the region of HK$5,000,000 did in fact come to Hong Kong at the instigation of the Appellant.

2. The judge thought that a sentence of four years imprisonment would have been appropriate having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the value of the goods, but he gave a discount of one year for a plea of Guilty.

3. Mr. Swaine has urged us to hold that the judge insufficiently considered the circumstances, especially that this offence would not have been committed at all by the Applicant but for the instigation of the investigator. There was no reason, on the evidence, to believe that the Appellant had the goods or that he would in any event have made a contract of this kind. The learned judge, with respect, gave the impression in his reasons that he thought the Applicant had the goods. He did not have the goods: it was only when this arrangement was made that he obtained them. This undoubtedly is a serious matter, having regard to the value of the goods involved, but we are of opinion that the judge did not give sufficient weight to all the circumstances. Further the judge seems to have thought that he was in some way protecting the Hong Kong market by imposing a substantial sentence. This does not appear to be correct. We think that a proper sentence here - giving discount for the plea of Guilty and for the fact that this was an instigated offence - would be one of twelve months' imprisonment. We therefore grant the application, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence and substitute one of twelve months' imprisonment.

31st January 1985