HKSAR v. Muhammad Yousaf
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 440/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 August 1998.
1. It is difficult to understand the difference in the sentences passed in respect of the 2nd and 3rd Charges.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMA000440/1998 HCMA440/98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.440 OF 1998 --------------------------------
-------------- Coram : Hon Nguyen, J. in Court Date of hearing : 20 August 1998 Date of judgment : 20 August 1998 --------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------- 1. It is difficult to understand the difference in the sentences passed in respect of the 2nd and 3rd Charges. 2. The sentences of two months each on the 1st and 3rd Charges are clearly not excessive. 3. On the sentence of six months passed on the 2nd Charge, it was held in R. v. Tsang Chiu Sing (MA646/93) that a starting point of six months for the offence of making a false representation to an Immigration Officer was correct. 4. Six months as the starting point for a similar offence was upheld in R. v. Dai Ming He (MA145/95). 5. Using six months as the starting point, I will reduce the sentence to four months for the guilty plea. This will be consecutive to the sentences passed on the 1st and 3rd Charges. 6. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence for the 2nd Charge will be reduced to four months, making a total sentence of eight months' imprisonment. Representation: Mr Martin Hui, G.C., for Director of Public Prosecutions Appellant in person
|
Other judgments that cite this case