HKSAR v. Nasir
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 135/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 February 1998.
1. The Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy of two offences, one of attempting to mislead a police officer, the other a breach of condition of stay. In respect of the first charge, he gave false information to a police officer by claiming to be the holder of a passport in the name of another person. When the policeman examined the passport, he found that the signature was different and made enquiries. It was then revealed that this Defendant was an overstayer.
|
HCMA000135/1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 1998 ____________
____________ Coram : The Hon. Madam Justice Beeson in Court Date of Hearing : 26 February 1998 Date of Delivery of Judgment : 26 February 1998 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. The Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy of two offences, one of attempting to mislead a police officer, the other a breach of condition of stay. In respect of the first charge, he gave false information to a police officer by claiming to be the holder of a passport in the name of another person. When the policeman examined the passport, he found that the signature was different and made enquiries. It was then revealed that this Defendant was an overstayer. 2. He had come to Hong Kong in June of 1994, was permitted to stay until September 1994 and in fact was arrested in September 1997 for these offences. The Appellant pleaded guilty to both charges, the magistrate was told at that stage his mother had become ill but no proof was produced. Today, the Appellant has produced a hospital chit stating that his mother suffers from diabetis, hypertension and ischemic heart disease. The Appellant said that she had been in hospital for about 1 month, which is borne out by the hospital chit. 3. Before the magistrate, the Appellant said in mitigation that he had fallen in love with a girl who lived here and that was why he overstayed. The magistrate passed a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment in respect of the charge of attempting to mislead a police officer. In respect of the breach of condition of stay, he imposed a sentence of 4 months. He had given a discount of one-third from his starting point of 6 months. The magistrate considered that the sentences should run consecutively because they were separate and distinct misdeeds. In that he was correct. 4. I do not consider the state of Appellant's mother health is relevant mitigation that would allow the court to reduce these sentences. There was nothing wrong or inappropriate with either sentence and the appeal against sentence is dismissed. Representation: Ms. Maggie Yang, S.G.C. for D.P.P Nasir, Appellant, in person
|