R. v. Chieh Ming Tsao

HCMA000032/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 32 OF 1995

____________

____________

Coram : Hon. Ryan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 17 February 1995

Date of judgment : 17 February 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing an unlawfully obtained travel document and to a charge of altering a travel document.

2. The appellant is a resident of Taiwan who was found to have a multiple entry permit issued to another person on which he had put his photograph. In mitigation before the magistrate it was said he was a partner in an electronic company which required him to often pass through Hong Kong on his way to China. He was said to be earning about $30,000 per month. On Charge A the magistrate sentenced the appellant to 6 months' imprisonment and imposed a fine of $20,000 in default, 3 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.

3. On Charge B, he fined the appellant $20,000 in default 3 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively. He did not say if the default sentence was to be consecutive to the 6 months' imprisonment and to the 3 months default term of imprisonment but I presume that is what he meant.

4. The appellant appeals on the grounds that the sentence was too severe. The notice of appeal did not refer to Charge B but at the hearing the appellant applied for leave to appeal out of time in respect of that sentence. I allowed the application.

5. The appellant said that due to family problems he would not be able to pay the fines. If that were so, he would serve one year's imprisonment which, given that the two charges were part of the same sets of facts, I consider excessive.

6. Justice would, I feel, he served if I allow the appeal on Charge B and substitute a sentence of one month to be served consecutively with the term of six months' imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge A.

7. The appeal in respect of Charge A is dismissed.

Representation:

Miss Hartstein, for Crown

Appellant, Chieh Ming Tsao, in person