R. v. Ma Chanjiao
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 711/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 August 1996.
1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant came to Hong Kong on 21st September 1995 from the Mainland. She was allowed to stay until 28th September, but she stayed well beyond that. On 7th December, she opened a bank account and in doing so used an identity card in the name of someone else who had lost it. Then in May 1996 she used the card again in an attempt to operate that account. She was arrested. She was charged with two offences of using an identity card which related to another
|
HCMA000711/1996 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 711 OF 1996 ------------------
------------------- Coram : Hon Stock, J. in Court Date of hearing : 15 August 1996 Date of judgment : 15 August 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant came to Hong Kong on 21st September 1995 from the Mainland. She was allowed to stay until 28th September, but she stayed well beyond that. On 7th December, she opened a bank account and in doing so used an identity card in the name of someone else who had lost it. Then in May 1996 she used the card again in an attempt to operate that account. She was arrested. She was charged with two offences of using an identity card which related to another, and one offence of contravening the condition of stay imposed in September 1995. 2. She appeared before the magistrate before whom she pleaded guilty. He sentenced her to 15 months' imprisonment on each of the identity card offences, which terms he ordered to run concurrently and he then sentenced her to one month's imprisonment on the immigration offence which he ordered to run consecutively; a total of 16 months. 3. This appellant has a previous conviction of a similar type, in that in November 1989, she was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for using an identity card relating to another person. She says to me today that she now knows that she has done wrong, the implication being that after the event, she has discovered what she did was wrong. The fact that she was sent to prison for 15 months in 1989 for precisely the same offence, meant that she committed these offences with her eyes very wide open. 4. In the circumstances, it seems to me, she is fortunate that the magistrate did not impose a longer term for the identity card offences. There is nothing objectionable in the sentences imposed by the magistrate. So, this appeal is dismissed. Representation: Mr F. Veltro, Senior Crown Counsel, for Crown Appellant, Ma Chanjiao, in person
|