The appeal following the sentencing related to the overpriced goods in Ha‘apai has been dismissed.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Song Ning Wang, who was sentenced to imprisonment for inflating the price of goods in his shop in Ha’apai.
Wang argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive, but it was rejected.
The court document showed that Wang appeared before the Magistrates Court, where he faced 25 summons under the Price and Wages Control Act. He 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.
This was obviously done just for profit.
The Learned Magistrate sentenced Mr Wang to a fine of $2,000.00 and three months imprisonment, the last two months had been suspended for two years.
The defence appealed the sentence and submitted the followings:
That the sentence was manifestly excessive and he was a first-time offender.
That this was a “purely property offence” that merited a non-custodial term and that his guilty plea was not sufficiently taken into account.
If prison was appropriate, then the two weeks he has served is sufficient.
The Magistrate failed to take into account all the relevant factors or took into account irrelevant factors.
They contended that assumptions were made as to past dealings.
They argued that this sentence was inconsistent with the sentences generally imposed for such offences.
They said that in Police v Chen Hengquan CR 118/2023 a fine of $80.00 was imposed on that defendant.
The Crown opposed the appeal on all grounds that this was an offence where the extent of the deception on the public was hidden by the failure to keep records.
They said the items in question are ring-fenced with a maximum price, presumably as they represent basic household items.
The shop in question was in Ha’apai, a small community that does not have a wide range of shops, in fact quite the opposite, it has a very limited range.
Therefore, these offences resonate in a much more serious way.
It appears the Learned Magistrate believed that the public needed to be protected from this type of “price-gouging”, especially 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, the judgement said.
By the fact that so many goods were overpriced, it quite clearly was a concerted effort to commit 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 judge said.
“Therefore, it appears to me the Learned Magistrate was entitled to view this offending as requiring both punishment and denunciation. He plainly also had in mind all the mitigating factors too”, Justice Nicholas Cooper said.
“Accordingly, I reject the defence submissions”, he also said.
“The sentence of the Learned Magistrate is upheld.
Mr. Wang’s appeal is dismissed; he will also have to pay the costs”.
