HKSAR v. ESCIO, GALIZIANO KREL
- Citation
- HKSAR v. ESCIO, GALIZIANO KREL
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 16 May 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal (hearing and Decision)
- Case number
- HCMA374/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 16 May 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal (hearing and Decision)
- Case number
- HCMA374/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is dismissed because the sentence of 15 months imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was within the permissible range; the magistrate's starting point and application of a guilty plea discount were not such as to require interference and it was proper to order six months of the later sentences to run consecutively to the earlier sentences.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences totalling 15 months imprisonment upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Lee Kan Yung, SGC of Department of JusticeEscio, Galiziano Krel
Appellant Counsel: Appellant in personAmounts and remedies
- Total Sentence Months: 15
- Individual Concurrent Sentence Months: 9
- Consecutive Portion Months: 6
- Magistrate Starting Point Months: 13
- Court Suggested Starting Point Months: 27
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal (hearing and Decision)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence of 15 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive
- 02
Whether sentences for offences on separate dates should be ordered to run consecutively
- 03
Appropriate starting point for sentencing offences involving false travel documents
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the sentences totalling 15 months imprisonment were too severe and unjustified given his remorse and personal circumstances.
- Respondent
- The respondent (HKSAR) contended that the sentences were appropriate in all the circumstances, that the magistrate applied a guilty plea discount and that ordering part of the sentence to run consecutively was proper.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Magistrate's Reasons / established sentencing practice
Guilty plea attracts a discount from the starting point for sentence (one-third applied by magistrate)
- 02
HKSAR v. Rakesh Kumar Sthapak [2005] 1 HKLRD 643
Sentencing must have regard to comparable authorities and appropriate starting points may be adjusted on appeal
- 03
Appellate reasoning in this judgment
Sentences for offences on separate occasions may be ordered to run consecutively where appropriate
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the sentence of 15 months imprisonment imposed by the magistrate was within the permissible range; the magistrate's starting point and application of a guilty plea discount were not such as to require interference and it was proper to order six months of the later sentences to run consecutively to the earlier sentences.
Obiter and limits
- The magistrate's original starting point of 13 months was described as generous; the judge observed that a starting point of 27 months would have been justifiable on these facts.
- The sentencing approach and comparisons to Rakesh Kumar Sthapak were noted as relevant guidance rather than determinative
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences totalling 15 months imprisonment upheld
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 16 May 2007
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· 16 May 2007
bjbj HCMA374/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC 2098 OF 2007) ---------------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and ESCIO, GALIZIANO KREL Appellant ------------------------ Before : Deputy High Court Judge Longley in Court Date of Hearing : 16 May 2007 Date of Judgment : 16 May 2007 -----------------------
J U D G M E N T -----------------------
AUTONUMOUT This is an appeal by the appellant against sentences totalling 15 months imprisonment imposed upon him by Mr Jenkins sitting at Shatin Magistrates Court on 9 March 2007. In his Notice of Appeal the appellant alleges that his sentences were too severe.
AUTONUMOUT The appellant faced two charges of using a false travel document for the purpose of Part II of the Immigration Ordinance, contrary to section 42(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 ( the Ordinance ) and two charges of making a false representation to an Immigration Assistant, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of the Ordinance. He pleaded guilty to all four charges.
AUTONUMOUT On 6 March 2007, the appellant was intercepted by the police in Wanchai on suspicion of breaching his condition of stay. A subsequent record check revealed that he had used a different identity to enter Hong Kong previously. Under caution the appellant admitted that he had been repatriated to Manila in July 2006 after he had been refused permission to land. Following that, he had acquired the false passport which is the subject matter of Charges 1 and 3 in order to facilitate his entry to Hong Kong. The false passport bore the appellant s own photograph but bore a false name and false particulars.
AUTONUMOUT Charges 1 and 2 relate to the appellant s use of the passport on 20 October 2006. Charges 3 and 4 relate to his use of the same passport for the same purpose on 5 March 2007.
AUTONUMOUT The magistrate imposed sentences of nine months imprisonment on Charges 1 and 2 and ordered them to run concurrently. He imposed the same sentences on Charges 3 and 4 which he ordered to run concurrently but he ordered six months of those sentences to run consecutively to the sentences he had imposed on Charges 1 and 2. The total sentence was therefore 15 months imprisonment.
AUTONUMOUT The magistrate arrived at his original sentences of nine months imprisonment by adopting a starting point of 13 months for all four charges which he discounted by one-third to reflect the appellant s plea of guilty.
AUTONUMOUT Today the appellant has read me a letter and has told me that he very much regretted his actions and he would never do the same thing again. He said he committed the offences because his friends had informed him, following his deportation from Hong Kong in July 2006, that he would not be able to enter Hong Kong again if he used his own name. He said he very much wanted to be reunited with his family in the Philippines.
AUTONUMOUT In his Reasons for Sentence, the magistrate referred to the starting point of 13 months imprisonment as being perhaps generous in hindsight. In my view, it was very generous. A starting point of 27 months, double that adopted by the magistrate, would have been justifiable on the facts of this case : see HKSAR v. Rakesh Kumar Sthapak [2005] 1 HKLRD 643. In my view, it was perfectly proper to order that six months of the sentences imposed in respect of the offences committed on 5 March 2007 should run consecutively to the sentences imposed in respect of the offences committed on 20 October 2006.
AUTONUMOUT In such circumstances, I see no grounds whatsoever for interfering with the sentences imposed by the magistrate which I already consider generous. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal. ( P.K.M. Longley ) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Lee Kan Yung, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant in person, present
PAGE -
PAGE A B 1udk 1udk t"(# &`#$ "@AB & 6" ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Microsoft Word 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.