HKSAR v. Dang Van Nghi
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 644/2004 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 August 2004.
1. The Appellant, a Vietnamese national, appeals sentences, imposed after pleas of guilty, of 15 months imprisonment for possession of a forged Hong Kong identity card, 6 months imprisonment for possession of a false instrument being a forged Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate and 28 days imprisonment for breach of condition of stay by overstaying.
|
HCMA000644/2004 HCMA 644/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2004 (ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 1721/2004) ____________
____________ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court Date of Hearing: 27 August 2004 Date of Judgment: 27 August 2004 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.The Appellant, a Vietnamese national, appeals sentences, imposed after pleas of guilty, of 15 months imprisonment for possession of a forged Hong Kong identity card, 6 months imprisonment for possession of a false instrument being a forged Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate and 28 days imprisonment for breach of condition of stay by overstaying. 2.The offences came to light during a routine check by police of passengers on a bus on 30th May 2004. When later interviewed the Appellant admitted having bought the forged identity card and certificate in order to obtain employment on a construction site in Hong Kong. 3.It has long been established that possession of a forged identity card by a first offender merits 15 months imprisonment on a plea of guilty, and is not excessive, where that possession is designed to assist obtaining employment or to further remaining in Hong Kong. [R v Shamin Nawaz [1994] 1 HKCLR 195] 4.There is no sentencing tariff for either of the other offences: the individual circumstances will vary greatly from case to case. Each sentence is, however, well within current sentencing practice. 5.There were no matters of mitigation which were overlooked by the Magistrate who properly ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. 6.The appeal is dismissed.
Representation: Ms Kathie Cheung, GC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent The Appellant, in person |