R. v. YIP TIN CHOI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 220
(Criminal)

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Ching, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted upon his own plea of one count of possession of forged travel documents, namely three Hong Kong Certificates of Identity. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 21 months and now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. Before us he sought an adjournment for the purposes of instructing a lawyer but that application was refused as no sufficient grounds were shown.

2. At about 4.00 p.m. on 13th December, 1994, the applicant excited the attention of a Cathay Pacific Airways Security Officer at boarding gate No. 5 at Kai Tak Airport where passengers for flight No. CX508 bound for Japan were to board. He was detained and searched. The search of his hand luggage revealed three envelopes. One contained a Certificate of Identity in the name of Yeung Lai Chun together with a Cathay Pacific Airways ticket issued in the name of that person. The second contained a Certificate of Identity in the name of Wong Tin-yen together with a Cathay Pacific Airways ticket issued in that name. The third contained a Certificate of Identity in the name of Lam Yu-wah together with a Cathay Pacific Airways ticket issued in that name. Each of the Certificates of Identity was forged. The photographs on them had been altered by the substitution of those of three other persons. Those three other persons, two of whom were already on board the aeroplane, were located and searched. They were each found to be in possession of a boarding pass in the name appearing on the forged Certificates.

3. Upon being cautioned on 14th December, 1994, the applicant admitted that the Certificates were forgeries. However, when he was taken before the Court his representative advised the Court that there would be a plea of not guilty and four days were then set down for the hearing. At the commencement of that hearing he changed his plea to one of guilty. It emerged that he was to be paid $6,000 for each of the forged certificates. In mitigation on his behalf it was said that he had wanted to plead guilty from the outset but the Judge rightly pointed out that he had not. Nor could he have realistically thought that he could successfully contest the charge. The only other matter advanced was that he was in need of an operation and could not afford the fees and that is why he committed the offence. The Judge pointed out that somewhere in the last three years he had had the money to purchase dangerous drugs for, amongst his other convictions, he has two convictions in 1992 and 1995 for possession. The Judge commented that he could receive medical attention in prison.

4. The Judge proceeded on the basis that the usual sentence for possession of one forged travel document is 18 months imprisonment. On the authority of Mark Ayivor (unreported, Criminal Appeal 359 of 1991) a higher starting point was called for when there were multiple such documents and where some sort of 'racket' was involved. The Court of Appeal in that case approved the sentence of three years imposed at trial. The Judge in this case then took a starting point of 30 months and reduced it to 21, no doubt giving a nine months discount for the plea of guilty in the circumstances in which that plea came about.

5. We cannot find any fault with the course taken by the Judge. Before us the applicant urged nothing further than the matters in his written notice of application namely his family circumstances, his economic condition and his health. Those are not reasons calling for this Court to interfere with what was a proper sentence. The application is dismissed.