by which he earned a living and that loss of the items sought by the Crown to be forfeited would put him in a precarious financial situation. 46. The judge concluded that the computers had clearly been used for legitimate purposes but that they had also been used and were intended to be used by Sheppard for committing or facilitating the commission of offences. The judge did not consider the forfeiture of these items would constitute excessive punishment. 47. As to office equipment, the judge again said he had in mind section 143 (5). He referred to the additional argument that there was no evidence this equipment was used for the production of any of the hard copies that were distributed. The judge said he was entitled to draw the inference that the office equipment in question was, if not used for the commission or facilitating of offences, intended to be used for such purpose. He said he was entitled to draw this interference because of Sheppard’s determination and persistence in publishing material of this nature. He had of course a previous conviction for similar offences and committed further offences whilst on bail. We cannot fault the judge’s reasoning or his decision. The transcript identifies by number the various items to be forfeited by Sheppard and it is unnecessary for us to repeat them. Conclusion 48. (1) The appeals against conviction are dismissed. (2) Leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeals against sentence are allowed to the limited extent indicated. (3) Leave to appeal against the forfeiture order imposed on Sheppard and an extension of time for doing so is refused.