THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN FAI

-------

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

JUDGMENT

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

Kempster, J.A. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. On 4th September 1990 in the District Court Chan Chun Fai and others were convicted after trial by Her Honour Judge Cannon, then sitting as a deputy judge, of that court, of conspiracy to handle stolen goods. Chan Chun Fai was also convicted on a substantive count of handling stolen goods. The conspiracy in question related to Mercedes Benz motor cars stolen and shipped or to be shipped to Thailand and Singapore and to other types of motor car. It involved dealings in motor cars which were photographed before being stolen. The photographs  were sent abroad, the motor car to be stolen was chosen, the car was stolen and then snipped away to its destination and delivered to the person who, probably unwittingly, had procured the theft and the handliny.  Ignition keys were copied, vehicle number licence plates exchanged and the most thorough planning was apparent.

2. On behalf of Chan Chun Fai, who was sentenced to 4 1/2 years imprisonment for the conspiracy to handle and to 5 years imprisonment, to run concurrently, for the substantive count Mr. Hemmings has urged us to consider the relative guilt of Chan Chun Fai as compared with others convicted for the same and a related conspiracy and drawn our attention to the fact that, one drug-related offence apart, he was a man of previous good character. Of course, we cannot overlook the calculated nature of these offences and the very considerable value of the goods handled. Further, the judge approached her task with care and obvious concern to impose the appropriate sentence. We feel, however, that taking the relative criminality of those involved into account the sentence of 4 1/2 years for conspiracy to handle stolen goods was too high. We also think, as a matter of principle, that the sentence of imprisonment for the substantive count should not exceed the appropriate sentence for conspiracy to handle. The sentences were properly ordered to run concurrently.

3. We think it appropriate to allow this application, for leave to appeal against sentence, to treat it as the hearing of the appeal to substitute for the sentence of 4 1/2 yearsd imprisonment imposed for conspiracy to handle stolen goods one of 4 years and by the same token to  substitute for the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the substantive count one of 4 years imprisonment also; the sentences to run concurrently.