CHANG SHOON MEN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000128/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.128 OF 1969

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

BETWEEN
	CHANG SHOON MEN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 7 March 1969

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

Huggins,J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a forged driving licence. He was the holder of a provisional driving licence to drive motor-cycles. In 1965 he sat for the written examination to qualify for a full licence and as he left the examination hall he was accosted by somebody who offered to fix for him the issue of a driving licence for $500.-. He paid this sum and received in exchange a document which purported to be a full driving licence to drive private motor-cars. It would appear that this licence, which I have not seen, was or purported to be a licence for three years. It therefore expired this year. The appellant asked someone else to go to the appropriate office to renew this licence and it was then discovered that the licence was a forgery, as a result of which this charge was laid.

2. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence but it is perhaps not insignificant that after he had pleaded guilty at the first hearing when asked whether he had anything to say before sentence was passed he said he did not know that the chops on the licence were forged. Naturally the learned magistrate then refused to accept the plea of guilty and had the case set down for trial. At the adjourned hearing the appellant admitted that he did know the document was forged and a plea of guilty was then accepted.

3. The appellant is a married man with five children. He holds a responsible job as chief mechanic in a factory. He has direct control apparently of 20 odd workers and his position in effect controls the whole work of the factory, which employs 110 workers. The head of this company asserts that without the appellant work is substantially at a standstill. The manager of the factory gave evidence that the appellant had worked there for 8 to 9 years. He was given a good character and the company was prepared to re-employ him.

4. The learned magistrate said that he took a serious view of this case, as well he might for this type of offence is known to be not uncommon in Hong Kong. The learned magistrate said that the reason he took a serious view was that motor-vehicles are potentially lethal weapons and that it was important that unqualified persons should not have control over them. He was clearly well aware of the provisions of s.13(1) of the Forgery Ordinance which allow the imposition of a fine either in addition to or instead of another punishment, but he was of opinion that a fine was not appropriate in the present case.

5. Before me counsel has urged that the appellant is an uneducated and ignorant man. Yet, as I have said, he holds a position of some responsibility and I am quite unable to believe that he was not fully aware that what he was doing was not only wrong but was illegal. Undoubtedly for a man of this kind a sentence of imprisonment is a severe sentence, but it was intended to be severe. I am told, and it is not denied, that the appellant did not in fact drive motor-vehicles. I suppose I must accept that that is the truth despite the fact that the licence was being renewed. Nevertheless I think that this type of offence has to be stopped in Hong Kong and it will not be stopped unless people realize that heavy sentences will be imposed. Persons who are in positions of responsibility must act in a responsible manner because others follow their example. I am unable to say that this sentence of two months' imprisonment, severe as it is, was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

 

7th March, 1969.