THE QUEEN v. SO HON KEUNG

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Yang, J.A.:

1. The offence now under consideration came to light on the 17th March when D1 and D2 were intercepted by Immigration Officers at the Kai Tak International Airport when they were about to board a flight for Singapore. It transpired that they were in possession of forged Hong Kong British Passports through the assistance of the applicant and another man by the name of "Ah Hoi" who is at large.

2. At the trial, the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of conspiracy to forge travel documents, namely, the Hong Kong British Passports in question.

3. The admitted facts were that in-February of this year, he met D1 and D2 in China and there he introduced D1 and D2 to "Ah Hoi", with a view to have forged passports made available to them. In the early part of March the applicant met with D1, D2 and "Ah Hoi" on three occasions in Hong Kong and similar discussions took place.

4. The judge in imposing a sentence of 2 years and 6 months upon the applicant took the view that he had to share a higher degree of culpability than that of D1 and D2. He said -

In passing the sentence, the judge also took into account the fact that he had pleaded guilty, that he had cooperated with the Immigration Officers and that there was no evidence to indicate that he had gained financially in this transaction. The case of Sirichairat and Yossakdacharoen, 1985 No. 124 Criminal was cited to us to support the contention that the sentence imposed in this case is too heavy. There a sentence of 2½ years was imposed for an offence of possession of forged passports. However this Court in that case said:

5. It seems to us that the sentence of 2 years and 6 months upon the applicant in this case, standing by itself, is not an improper sentence. However, we have regard to the judge's assessment of culpability and come to the view that he had placed too high a degree of culpability upon the applicant. In this regard, we take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of So Hung Lee, Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1985, where it was decided that the only question in a situation such as this is that this Court had to consider whether the judge had properly apportioned the blame between the five accused.

6. As we have said, we are of the view that the apportionment of blame in this instant case could be criticised in that the applicant's culpability was seen to be much higher than that of D1 and D2.

7. For this reason and this reason alone, we think it proper to allow the application, treat the application as the hearing of the appeal proper and reduce the sentence of 2 years and 6 months to one of 2 years.