By Linny Folau
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Song Ning Wang who sentenced to imprisonment for inflating the price of goods in his shop in Ha'apai. Wang's appeal that his sentence was manifestly excessive, was rejected.
Justice Cooper in a ruling on the appeal on 6 December upheld the Magistrate's sentence. Wang, after facing 25 summons under the Price and wages Control Act, had pleaded guilty. The allegation was that he charged in excess for items that are price-controlled and so had inflated the cost of those goods.
The judge stated that this was obviously done just for profit. the Magistrate had sentenced Mr. Wang to a fine of $2,000 and three months' imprisonment with the last two months suspended for two years.
“The defence submission was that the sentence was manifestly excessive that the appellant was a first time offender and this was purely a property offence that merited a non-custodial term. His guilty plea was not sufficiently taken into account.
The defence argued that this sentence was inconsistent with the sentences generally imposed for such offences.
The Crown opposed the appeal on all grounds and stated that in regards to it being manifestly excessive, this was an offence where the extent of the deception on the public was hidden by the failure to keep records.
The Crown also argued that the items in question were ring-fenced with a maximum price, presumably as they represent basic household items, and the shop in question was in Ha'apai, a small community that has a very limited range of shops.
The judge stated that it appeared the Magistrate took the view that the public needed to be protected from this type of 'price-gouging', especially in a small community dependent on a very limited array of retail establishments.
“He was perfectly within his rights to form such a view. It stands to reason that Mr. Wang had been doing this over a length of time, it plainly had not taken place that same day he was caught.
“By the fact that so many goods were overpriced, it quite clearly was a concerted effort to commit a fraud on the public. It is axiomatic that it was just to profit Mr. Wang. It might be thought by some this was a severe sentence, imposing a custodial term.
“The aggravating features were his systematic and extensive inflation of prices, pre-planning, price-gouging in a small community dependant on few shops and failure to keep records,” said the Judge.
He said the Magistrate was entitled to view this offending as requiring both punishment and denunciation. He also had in mind all the mitigating factors too.
Justice Cooper said there is a difference between a sentence that is “severe (if that is what it was)” and one that is “manifestly sever”.
“A sentence that is severe does not necessarily make it manifestly excessive.
“I also note the majority of the custodial term was suspended. Improper considerations taken into account. It was argued the Learned Magistrate made comments suggestive that there was a history to this conduct and took that into account when sentencing.
“There surely was a history to it. This offending had not happened that same clay. Both by its type and the extent and the fact of the lack of record keeping, it had plainly been going on for some time.
The judge said he fact of the lack of record keeping indicated that Mr. Wang's plan to inflate the cost of these goods was one that he intended to purse into the future.
“It was a dishonest scheme past, present and future.”
The Magistrate's Court has the authority to impose the sentence it did.
“I add to that, Learned Magistrates work within communities and are encouraged to use their local knowledge. They are best placed to assess justice against any behaviour that criminally destabilises their communities, in this case the proper, honest functioning of commerce.
“Accordingly, I reject the defence submissions. The sentence of the Learned Magistrate is upheld and Mr. Wang's appeal is dismissed. He is to pay the costs,” stated the judge.
