HKSAR v. AKTHAR MST POPY
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 1487
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 26 June 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Magistracy Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA194/2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 26 June 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Magistracy Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA194/2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Magistrate properly applied sentencing authorities and guidelines, selected a 24-month starting point for the offence and correctly enhanced the sentence to 26 months because the appellant was an asylum-seeker; there was no valid basis for appellate interference, so the sentence was upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence of 26 months imprisonment affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SPP of the Department of JusticeAKTHAR Mst Popy
AppellantAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Length (months): 26
- Starting Point Adopted by Magistrate (months): 24
- Maximum Alleged Quantity of Ecstasy (grams): 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Magistracy Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive or erroneous
- 02
Appropriate starting point for trafficking in ecstasy of over 1 gram up to 10 grams
- 03
Whether the appellant's status as an asylum-seeker is an aggravating factor
- 04
Whether there was any mitigation warranting reduction of sentence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the sentence was excessive and that the appropriate starting point for trafficking in over 1 gram and up to 10 grams of ecstasy was in the range of 2 to 4 years imprisonment; sought mitigation to reduce sentence.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted the Magistrate correctly applied sentencing guidance (Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng), adopted a 24-month starting point and, applying HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif, appropriately enhanced to 26 months because the appellant was an asylum-seeker; there was no basis to interfere.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323
Use of established sentencing guidelines to select a starting point for offending of particular gravity
- 02
HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664
An offender's immigration or asylum-seeker status can be an aggravating factor in sentencing
- 03
Common law appellate review principle cited in judgment
Appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary sentencing decision absent a proper basis such as error of principle or manifest excess
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Magistrate properly applied sentencing authorities and guidelines, selected a 24-month starting point for the offence and correctly enhanced the sentence to 26 months because the appellant was an asylum-seeker; there was no valid basis for appellate interference, so the sentence was upheld.
Obiter and limits
- Acceptance that being an asylum-seeker is an aggravating factor in sentencing
- Reference to a general starting range of 2–4 years for trafficking in ecstasy over 1 gram and up to 10 grams
- No mitigating factors were found to justify reduction of the sentence
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentence of 26 months imprisonment affirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 26 June 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 26 June 2018
bjbj
HCMA 194/2018 [2018] HKCFI 1487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 194 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 110 OF 2018) ____
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and AKTHAR Mst Popy Appellant ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge V Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 26 June 2018 Date of Delivery of Judgment: 26 June 2018
JUDGMENT The Appellant, an asylum-seeker in her late twenties and of in a bag which she was carrying. Addressing the Magistrate in mitigation, the Appellant s counsel at the trial: (i) submitted that the starting point for trafficking in over one gramme and up to 10 grammes of ecstasy was in the range of 2 to 4 years imprisonment; and (ii) accepted that the fact that a person who committed a serious crime was an asylum-seeker is an aggravating factor. By reference to the sentencing guidelines in Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2008] 3 HKC 323, the Magistrate adopted a starting point of 24 months imprisonment. Having regard to what was said in HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664, she enhanced the sentence to 26 months imprisonment because the Appellant was an asylum- seeker. She found no mitigation by which to reduce the sentence. Is the sentence too severe? In my judgment, it is not. There is no proper basis on which to interfere with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (V Bokhary) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent The Appellant appeared in person - PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V h;F+ h{`) gdVu gdVu gdI& gd?i h{`) hCA$ h@#= |tptptptp h~@0 gd?i gd?i gd?i & #$ & #$ & #$ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml 4m1` s\ 9z8 `f&8 pyA) IIQ> jp#jWZCy7 #hWIP w-8:~ 2%wb~ drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml gJs)rL. Vv5S
TA E 2ZCt [ml84; uA~Z LX7Ge \$K/* #HXI drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml #&*Ys |_W- kEG@ JVLk8-
TA E A7rB P*8| I"/ uA~Z LX7Ge drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml gJs)rL. Vv5S
TA E I"/ I[Zv \^P"a drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK &tBL ;R,U VZ" E*p# ;R,U _V5i High Court Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{0B2A6353-D47B-4040-9EB9-1B09CFFFA8AD}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.