Case Document

100%

HCMA000606/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 606 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

	AND

	DILIP KUMAR BHATTARAI	Appellant

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

Coram : Hon Patrick Chan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 26 July 1996

Date of judgment : 26 July 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of an identity card relating to another person and one count of breach of condition of stay. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and six months' imprisonment respectively, but both sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals against sentence.

2. It appears that the appellant came to Hong Kong on 2nd May 1995, and he was permitted to stay until 20th May 1995, that is for 18 days. However, he remained after that. On 23rd April 1996, the police stopped the appellant in Chungking Mansion and checked his identity. He produced a Hong Kong identity card in the name of Limbu Madan Kumar. It was found that it belonged to another person. Indeed, he had overstayed in Hong Kong.

3. The appellant before me accepted that the sentences would not be inappropriate except that he wanted to go back to Nepal in October to sit for an examination so that he could work. I do not accept that excuse. If he had wanted to do that, he would have done that last year. I do not accept that he had come to Hong Kong to visit his friends and had been living on their favours. It seems that he had overstayed for 11 months. I do not believe that he had not worked here.

4. The authorities seem to suggest that for a person found in possession of an identity card relating to another person, even though he is not a Chinese illegal immigrant, the sentence could be up to 12 months to 15 months. In the present case, he obviously got a good deal. He had both sentences to run concurrently.

5. I have no hesitation to say that the learned Magistrate was correct in imposing the sentences which are neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Wesley Wong, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant, Mr Dilip Kumar Bhattarai, in person