The Queen v. Yu Wing-wut
Read the full judgment text of CACC 346/1984 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 September 1984 before Cons JA, Silke JA and Kempster J.
Criminal law – sentencing – possession of a forged travel document – Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) s.42(2)(c)(i) – remaining in Hong Kong after unlawful landing – Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) s.38(1)(b) – appeal against sentence – forged Hong Kong British passport with substituted photograph used to depart Hong Kong for the Philippines – appellant arrested at Kai Tak Airport after approximately ten days' unlawful stay – appropriate starting point drawn from Criminal Appeal 934 of 1981 approving 15 months for possession of forged identity cards – modest uplift justified by international dimension of passport forgery and need to preserve comity between nations and protect Hong Kong's reputation abroad – uplift of no more than double the starting point appropriate – whether sentences on the two charges should be wholly concurrent – two charges not part and parcel of a single transaction but some overlap justified – appeal allowed – sentence on first charge reduced from 3 years to 18 months' imprisonment – sentence on second charge varied from 1 year to 6 months' imprisonment, of which 3 months concurrent and 3 months consecutive to the first sentence.
Legal issues: Appropriate sentence for possession of a forged passport and unlawful remaining in Hong Kong
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; appeal treated as heard and allowed; sentences varied downwards.
Cited by 10 cases
|
CACC000346/1984
---------------------- Headnote ---------------------- Sentence for possession of forged passport varied to 18 months' imprisonment.
BETWEEN
------- Coram: Hon. Cons, Silke JJ.A. and Kempster, J. Date of hearing: 6th September, 1984. Date of judgment: 6th September, 1984. __________ JUDGMENT __________ Cons, J.A.: 1. The Appellant pleaded guilty in the Kowloon District Court to possession of a forged travel document, contrary to Section 42(2)(c)(i) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, and to remaining in Hong Kong after having landed unlawfully without the appropriate authority, contrary to Section 38(1)(b) of the same Ordinance. He had been arrested while attempting to leave for the Philippines from Kai Tak Airport when he presented a genuine Hong Kong British Passport from which the original photograph had been removed and his own substituted in its place. He had apparently then been in Hong Kong for some ten days. 2. The learned judge below passed a sentence of three years for possession of the false passport and of one year for the unlawful remaining. Miss Pinto who appears for the Appellant has drawn our attention to several cases in which lesser, or even suspended sentences, have been passed for similar offences, but the reports do not give sufficient detail to allow us to draw assistance from them. 3. On the other hand a useful starting point is to be found in Criminal Appeal 934 of 1981 in which this Court, on the 4th January 1982, approved four sentences of imprisonment, each of fifteen months, for the possession of forged identity cards. Counsel for the Crown observes that forgery of a Hong Kong Identity Card would not entail the possibility of any international repercussion. There is need, he says, to preserve comity between nations and to maintain for the benefit of all of its citizens the good name of Hong Kong abroad. These considerations weighed heavily with the judge below. 4. We accept that the considerations are not without force. At the same time we do not think they justify an increase of more than two times. Appropriate sentences in the circumstance of this case would in our view be eighteen months and six months respectively. 5. The learned judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently. He must have taken the view that they formed part and parcel of one transaction. With respect we do not think that is so, although it would be fair to assume that the Appellant had never intended to remain here for very long and that some overlapping is justified. 6. For these reasons we allow the application for leave to appeal; treat the application as the hearing of the appeal; order the sentence on the first charge to be reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment and that on the second to be varied to six months' imprisonment, three months of which are to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on the first charge and three months to be consecutive thereto.
Representation: Miss Josephine Pinto (D.L.A.) for Appellant. Mr. M.K. Ricketts, Crown Counsel for Respondent. |
Other judgments that cite this case