The Queen V Lee Sun Shui

HCMA001052/1986

BETWEEN

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 25 November 1986

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

------------------------

1. LEE Sun-shui appeals against a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed upon him by a Magistrate, when he pleaded guilty to using an identity card which related to another person.

2. When imposing this sentence, the Magistrate took into account, perfectly properly, a similar conviction recorded against the Appellant in December 1985, for which he received a sentence of 6 months imprisonment.

3. The facts of the case, which were admitted by the Defendant, were that he was stopped and searched by a police officer in the early hours of the 29th of September. He admitted that he was an illegal immigrant from China and that he had bought the identity card, which he was carrying, in China and kept it for his own use.

4. I was referred to of R. V. LAU Chung-kwan⁽¹⁾, in which the Court of Appeal expressed the view that the usual sentence for a person who is convicted of possession of a forged identity card, or of the identity card of another person, should be 15 months.

5. In view of the Appellant's previous conviction, I warned him that there was a danger that, if he pursued his appeal, the sentence might be increased.

6. However, he chose to do so and asked for a reduction in his sentence, on the basis that he had only come to Hong Kong because of a summons from the mother of his child, who wanted him to take charge of the boy.

7. The Crown did not challenge this assertion and I approached the sentence on the basis that it was true.

8. This does, in my view, constitute exceptional humanitarian considerations, which weigh against the additional sentence that I would otherwise have thought proper, above the usual one of 15 months, in the case of someone who has previously been convicted of the same offence.

9. Giving weight to both these factors, I decided to dismiss the appeal but not to alter the sentence. I also gave directions that the Social Welfare Department should be asked to try to trace the child and to see whether anything could be done to look after it. The child is said to be living with the Appellant's cousin LEE Shum-keung, whose address he did not know but whose telephone number is K-954132.

(1) M.A. 796/86

Representation:

Mr. J. Mullick assigned by D.L.A. for Appellant

Mr. A.A. Bruce, s.c.c. and Mr. Peter Ip, c.c. for Crown