|
CACC000136/1984
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL |
1984, No. 136 |
|
(Criminal) |
BETWEEN
|
THE QUEEN
|
|
|
and |
|
|
1. WAN BING-KAN (D2) |
|
|
2. HO WAI-PUI (D1) |
|
|
3. KWAN WING-CHEONG (D3) |
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Li & Yang, J J. A.
Date of Judgment: 7th August 1984
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :
1. These three Applicants were convicted on a charge of uttering forged banknotes. They were then sentenced - the 1st Defendant to five years' imprisonment, the 2nd Defendant to six years' and the 3rd Defendant to four years'. They originally appealed against conviction and sentence but each of them has abandoned his appeal against conviction.
2. There can be no doubt that offences of this kind are serious. As Mr. Westbrook suggested, it may be that the quantity of notes here was not such as would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. Nevertheless the uttering of forged banknotes cannot but shake the confidence of the public in the currency. It is for that reason that the courts must take a serious view of any such cases.
3. That said, it would appear that the sentences in this case are out of line with the general run of sentences in cases of this kind, although there is one case - a recent Application for Review - where the court expressed the view that a sentence of eight years' imprisonment for conspiracy to utter forged documents (banknotes of the same denomination as those in this case) would have been richly deserved if it had been lawful. In the present case the 1st and the 3rd Defendants had clear records, and the 2nd Defendant, although he had previous convictions, had none which was under this particular section in the Crimes Ordinance. The 1st and the 3rd Defendants were considerably younger than the 2nd Defendant. It would seem that the part played by the 3rd Defendant was less than that of the other two: he was described as a mere delivery man. The 1st Defendant was the one who first carried out negotiations, but he was the youngest and he handed over the negotiations to others at a later stage.
4. We have come to the conclusion that the sentences were higher than were necessary in all the circumstances and we think that justice would be done if each of these sentences was reduced by two years. That means that the 1st Defendant will serve three years, the 2nd Defendant will serve four years arid the 3rd Defendant will serve two years.
7th August 1984
Representation:
|