HKSAR v. Ku Hung Kwan

HCMA000859/2000

HCMA 859/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 859 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM SPCC 3926/2000)

____________

____________

Coram: Hon V. Bokhary J in Court

Date of Hearing: 10 November 2000

Date of Judgment: 10 November 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of 19 months' imprisonment made up of two consecutive terms, one of four months' imprisonment for possession of a forged travel document and the other of 15 months' imprisonment for remaining in Hong Kong without authority after having landed here unlawfully.

2. Mr Ng, counsel for the Appellant, referred me to the case of HKSAR v. Vu Thi Phuong, Magistracy Crim. App. No. 390 of 2000, 22 June 2000 in which Chan CJHC (as he then was) said:

"In my view, where there is no evidence of illegal immigrant having made use of the forged document to look for employment, the more lenient step to take, as that taken by Woo J (as he then was) in HKSAR V. Nguyen Van Truong, HCMA 612/1999 (unreported), is to order the two sentences to run concurrently."

Mr Ng submits that I should similarly take a more lenient step in this case since there is no evidence of the appellant having made use of the forged document to look for employment.

3. In all the circumstances of this case, I am persuaded that I should take the more lenient step in this case of ordering that the two sentences run concurrently with each other. Of course, whether a court should take a more lenient step in any particular case would depend very much on the facts of each case and it does not mean that any defendant facing such similar charges would inevitably get concurrent terms of imprisonment. This appeal is therefore allowed as I do think that there are circumstances which enables me to take a more lenient step in this case. As I have indicated, I order that the two sentences run concurrently with each other thus making a total of 15 months' imprisonment.

Representation:

Mr Simon Tam, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr Ng Ka Chung, Simon, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Appellant