HKSAR v. Wong Shing Kong

HCMA000317/2002

HCMA317/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2002

(on appeal from TMCC No. 174 of 2002)

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

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge McMahon in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 May 2002

Date of Judgment: 7 May 2002

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This is an appeal against sentence only. The appellant was convicted of an offence of using a forged Hong Kong identity card, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177, in respect of which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment; and a further offence of using a false instrument, being a Hong Kong Construction Industry Safety Card, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, in respect of which he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Both periods of imprisonment were to run concurrently. He received therefore a totality of 12 months' imprisonment.

2.The facts of the case were quite simple. On the charged date, he handed both forged documents to a person at a construction site conducting a lecture on work safety. The appellant had obtained a job at that construction site as a worker. He had come to Hong Kong lawfully on limited conditions of stay, and had brought both documents with him from the Mainland with the intention of unlawfully obtaining employment in Hong Kong.

3.The appellant is not complaining about either sentence being excessive or wrong in principle, he simply seeks a reduction in sentences on the basis of humanitarian reasons. Those reasons are, firstly, the health of his mother and father on the Mainland; his mother apparently had an operation following an accident which required the insertion of a metal plate into her body, and his father was admitted to hospital apparently for a mild stroke and now suffers from memory loss. Both of those incidents occurred prior to his sentencing by the magistrate, and were not raised in mitigation before the magistrate because the appellant says he was nervous and unsure of what to do at the time, but I note that he was represented by counsel within the Duty Lawyer Scheme. The third matter he raises as a humanitarian ground occurred after his sentence and, that is, that his wife gave premature birth to a son. Apparently, understandably, at that time his wife was in ill health.

4.These matters that the appellant raises as a humanitarian basis for a reduction in his existing sentences, whilst unfortunate, in my view are not so exceptional so as to warrant any humanitarian consideration. These sorts of matters are unfortunately part and parcel of human life and, in my view, do not warrant reduction of the present sentences.

5.Accordingly, the appeal against sentences is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr E.J. Brook, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in person