THE QUEEN v. MO CHUN HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

______

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The Applicant, Mo Chun Hung, sought leave to appeal against both his conviction and his sentence. He has now abandoned his application in respect of conviction and we are therefore concerned only with the sentence which was passed upon him of six years'   imprisonment upon conviction, after trial, for being in possession of 2,000 forged US$100 notes.

2. It was, briefly, the evidence for the Crown that police surveillance had been kept. The Applicant was seen to go away from a particular place and then return in a taxi with an orange bag. He handed that orange bag to his co-accused at trial who was arrested and was found holding the bag. It contained the notes in question. The Applicant made a cautioned statement which, after a voir dire was held to be voluntary and admissible. It was relied upon, and properly so, by the trial judge in coming to his finding of guilt.

3. The face value of the notes was HK$1,500,000. There was a suggestion that the wholesale value, if I may term it such, was HK$240,000.

4. Mr. Poll has made two points. First, that in passing the sentence of six years' imprisonment, the trial judge did not consider sufficiently the previous good character of the Applicant who had a clear record; and secondly, that the number of prosecutions and convictions for possession of forged banknotes has decreased since 1984. We have been referred to Ngan Chun Yee ⁽¹⁾ which decision was relied upon by the trial judge in passing sentence.

5. In that case, the Applicant was convicted of possession of one hundred forged $1,000 Chartered Bank notes. Another division of this Court said:

"             We were informed by counsel for the Crown that a large number of forged banknotes have come into the possession of the police in the course of this year. Certainly there have been before this court an unusually large number of appeals concerned with sentences for uttering or possession of forged banknotes during the past few months."

I interpolate here that the sentence originally passed in that case were of six years, four and half years and six years upon the three Applicants. Those sentences were reduced to four years, three years and four years in accordance with the tariff which then pertained. The Court went on:

"             We should like to say that although we felt it proper to reduce these  sentences because of the previously prevailing tariff for them, we consider that judges should consider increasing the tariff to the sort of level which was applied by the trial judge in this case, so that in future we would not be inclined to interfere with a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment in a case   of this nature, following a plea of not guilty and a conviction."

(1)    Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1984

6. As I said, the trial judge, in passing the six years, stated himself to follow those guidelines. The value of the notes was very very much greater than the value of the notes in Ngan Chun Yee.⁽¹⁾

7. While, given the previous clear record of the Applicant, the sentence may be somewhat on the high side, it is not one with which we feel it proper to interfere. The application, therefore, is refused.