Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. BASHIR AHMED

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Credit of 36 days detention should be given and a modest additional reduction for the appellant's truthful admission and remorse is appropriate, resulting in reduction of the total sentence from 18 months to 16 months while affirming the magistrate's original sentencing starting point.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part: total sentence reduced to 16 months imprisonment

Orders

  • Total sentence reduced to 16 months imprisonment
  • Credit of 36 days detention by Immigration Department awarded
  • Original sentence starting point of the magistrate affirmed (no criticism)

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Ms Peggy Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor

Bashir Ahmed

Appellant Counsel: Self-represented

Amounts and remedies

  • Original Total Sentence (months): 18
  • Adjusted Total Sentence (months): 16
  • Detention Credit (days): 36

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (hcma 830/2011) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant sought deduction of 36 days spent in Immigration Department custody and emphasised he told the truth from the start, respected the law, was sorry and had admitted his guilt.
Respondent
Respondent confirmed the 36 days detention and did not oppose deduction; respondent maintained that 18 months total was predictable and appropriate absent exceptional circumstances.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Magistrate practice affirmed by Court of First Instance in judgment

    Detention time prior to sentencing should be credited against the sentence

  2. 02

    Sentencing principles / Court practice

    Overlapping sentences may be ordered to reflect concurrent operation where appropriate

  3. 03

    Sentencing practice

    Guilty plea, prompt admission and remorse may justify modest reduction in sentence

  4. 04

    Registration of Persons Ordinance Cap.177 s7A(1)(a); Immigration Ordinance s38A(a)(1)(a)

    Use of another person's identity card and unauthorised employment constitute offences under the relevant statutory provisions

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Credit of 36 days detention should be given and a modest additional reduction for the appellant's truthful admission and remorse is appropriate, resulting in reduction of the total sentence from 18 months to 16 months while affirming the magistrate's original sentencing starting point.

Obiter and limits

  • 18 months as a total in those circumstances is entirely predictable and, absent very exceptional circumstances, un-appealable
  • Magistrates habitually make a deduction for prior detention by the Immigration Department

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part: total sentence reduced to 16 months imprisonment

  • Total sentence reduced to 16 months imprisonment
  • Credit of 36 days detention by Immigration Department awarded
  • Original sentence starting point of the magistrate affirmed (no criticism)

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 8 February 2012

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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 8 February 2012

HKSAR v. BASHIR AHMED

bjbj P"(P. HCMA 830/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2011 (ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 2861 OF 2011) ____

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and BASHIR AHMED Appellant ____ Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Line in Court Date of Hearing: 8 February 2012 Date of Judgment: 8 February 2012 ______

J U D G M E N T _______ This is an appeal against a total sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two charges; one of using an identity card relating to another person, contrary to section 7A(1)(a) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177; and another offence of taking employment while being a person who remains in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, contrary to section 38A(a)(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance. In respect of each offence a sentence of 15 months imprisonment was passed but they were overlapped to create the total of 18 months. The appellant had arrived in Hong Kong illegally on 13 March 2008. He was released upon a recognisance. On 10 November 2011 he was found working in a kitchen. He had secured that employment in April of 2011 using another s identity card. In other words, the use of the identity card had successfully procured for him seven months of employment here. I need not rehearse all the authorities because they are so well known, 18 months imprisonment as a total in those circumstances is entirely predictable and in the absence of some very exceptional circumstances is un-appealable. However, what the appellant puts before me today is a plea that some 36 days which he spent in the custody of the Immigration Department since his arrival in Hong Kong should be deducted

from his sentence. The respondents confirm that period of detention and do not seek to argue against such a deduction. As I understand it magistrates habitually make such a deduction in these circumstances. Accordingly, I shall give credit for those 36 days and I shall give just a little bit more credit because it makes the mathematics the easier and because of what the appellant added to his case today by saying to me that he told the truth from the beginning, he had respect for the law, he was sorry that he had broken it and that he had been quick to own up to it. In those circumstances rather than deal with the 16 months and just a few days I shall reduce the sentence to one of 16 months imprisonment but making clear that I have no criticism of the original sentence and its starting point taken by the magistrate. (P Line) Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court Ms Peggy Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant appeared in person

PAGE -

PAGE - CRT16/8.2.2012/CH HCMA830/2011/Judgment

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 hNCd gdNCd xdxnxd vrvr h$\p &`#$ gdKh hYlo gdKh [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place bZ < =RM/L$t\ [g\k [g\k =RM/ Normal.dotm Tai Yin Sheung Lilian Microsoft Office Word judiciary Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 s7A(1)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Immigration Ordinance, s38A(a)(1)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.