HKSAR v. KHURSHID MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KHURSHID MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

The magistrate's credibility findings, supported by contemporaneous photographic evidence of an unfinished flat and tools consistent with renovation work, justified the irresistible inference that both appellants were working for wages while unlawfully in Hong Kong, so convictions under s38AA were safe; the 2nd appellant's sentence followed the recognised guideline (adjusted upward for conviction after trial) and was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, so appellate interference was unjustified.

Citation
HKSAR v. KHURSHID MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: Khurshid Muhammad; 2nd Appellant: Mehmood Kashir
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 April 2014
Case Number
HCMA123/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegal Entry, Taking Up Employment, Conviction Appeal, Sentence Appeal, Credibility of Witnesses, Sentencing Guideline
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Criminal Law Sentencing Evidence Illegal Entry Taking Up Employment Conviction Appeal Sentence Appeal +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Khurshid Muhammad

1st Appellant

Mehmood Kashir

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants took up employment while remaining in Hong Kong without authority contrary to s38AA of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's credibility findings and inferences drawn from photographic and testimonial evidence were safe
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on the 2nd appellant was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's credibility findings, supported by contemporaneous photographic evidence of an unfinished flat and tools consistent with renovation work, justified the irresistible inference that both appellants were working for wages while unlawfully in Hong Kong, so convictions under s38AA were safe; the 2nd appellant's sentence followed the recognised guideline (adjusted upward for conviction after trial) and was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, so appellate interference was unjustified.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Convictions of both appellants upheld