HKSAR v. FEN SHUICI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. FEN SHUICI
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 15 February 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment Delivered by Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1180/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 15 February 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment Delivered by Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1180/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Where a defendant is found in possession of a forged identity card but there is no evidence of actual use to obtain employment or to conceal identity the appropriate sentence is 12 months imprisonment; the magistrate erred in imposing 15 months and the sentence on Charge 2 is varied to 12 months.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence on Charge 2 varied from 15 months to 12 months imprisonment; sentence on Charge 1 and the order that sentences be served concurrently upheld.
Orders
- Sentence on Charge 2 (possession of forged identity card) varied to 12 months imprisonment
- Original sentence of 7 days imprisonment on Charge 1 and the order that sentences be served concurrently are affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
FEN Shuici
Appellant Counsel: Ms Cecilia Liang (instructed by Kong & Chang on the instructions of the Director of Legal Aid)HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Harish Melwany, Senior Government Counsel, Department of JusticeAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Charge 1 (days): 7
- Sentence Charge 2 Original (months): 15
- Sentence Charge 2 Varied (months): 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment Delivered by Court of First Instance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate erred in imposing a 15 month sentence for possession of a forged identity card where there was no evidence of actual use
- 02
Proper application of HKSAR v Li Chang-li distinguishing possession from use to obtain employment or to conceal identity
- 03
Whether the appellant's stated intention to seek employment justified the higher sentence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant accepted he acquired the forged identity card with an initial intention of using it to obtain employment but there was no evidence of actual use; relying on HKSAR v Li Chang-li he submitted the appropriate sentence for mere possession is 12 months and the 15 month sentence was excessive.
- Respondent
- Prosecution acknowledged the distinction drawn in HKSAR v Li Chang-li and accepted that where there is possession without evidence of use the appropriate sentence is 12 months and that the higher sentence should not have been imposed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
HKSAR v LI Chang-li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864
Distinction in sentencing between mere possession of a forged identity card and its use to conceal identity or obtain employment; lighter sentence for mere possession.
- 02
Judgment of Wright J., High Court, HCMA 1180/2006
A magistrate's finding of intent alone does not automatically justify imposing the higher sentence reserved for actual use absent evidence of use.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Where a defendant is found in possession of a forged identity card but there is no evidence of actual use to obtain employment or to conceal identity the appropriate sentence is 12 months imprisonment; the magistrate erred in imposing 15 months and the sentence on Charge 2 is varied to 12 months.
Obiter and limits
- The magistrate was justified in finding the appellant had acquired the card with a view to looking for a job but that factual finding did not justify imposing the higher sentence reserved for use rather than mere possession.
- The Court of Appeal's distinction in HKSAR v Li Chang-li between possession and use is authoritative for sentencing in such cases.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence on Charge 2 varied from 15 months to 12 months imprisonment; sentence on Charge 1 and the order that sentences be served concurrently upheld.
- Sentence on Charge 2 (possession of forged identity card) varied to 12 months imprisonment
- Original sentence of 7 days imprisonment on Charge 1 and the order that sentences be served concurrently are affirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 15 February 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· 15 February 2007
bjbj HCMA 1180/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2006 ____
HKSAR and FEN Shuici ____ Before: Hon Wright, J., in Court Date of Hearing: 15 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 15 February 2007 ___
JUDGMENT ___ The appellant appeals concurrent sentences of seven days imprisonment in respect of an offence of breach of condition of stay contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, and 15 months imprisonment for possession of a forged identity card contrary to s. 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap.
177. The first offence arose when the appellant overstayed the period for which he was lawfully permitted to remain in Hong Kong. He was stopped by police and it was then that his status was revealed. He was subsequently searched and the forged identity card was found underneath the inner sole of one of his shoes. No complaint is made of the sentence on the first charge nor of the fact that the magistrate ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. The appeal is solely against the sentence on the second charge. The basis of the appeal is that the magistrate imposed the wrong sentence in the light of the decision in HKSAR v LI Chang-li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864. The Court of Appeal clearly distinguished a situation where a person is found in possession of a forged identity card and that where a forged identity card is used either to conceal identity or to obtain employment. It indicated that the appropriate sentence in the former situation is one of 12 months imprisonment, whilst in the latter one of 15 months imprisonment. In mitigation advanced on behalf of the appellant the magistrate was told, in terms, that the appellant had acquired the forged identity card with the initial intention of using it to obtain employment. He can hardly be criticised, therefore, for finding "... there was no doubt whatsoever that the appellant had this forged identity card with him with a view
to looking for a job in Hong Kong and that he intended to use it to cover up his unemployable status here." In this matter there was no evidence of actual use of the forged identity card by the appellant. Although the magistrate was justified in making his finding, that did not justify imposing the higher of the two sentences. The prosecution accepts that that is the course that should have been followed. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence imposed on Charge 2 is varied to one of 12 months imprisonment. (A R WRIGHT) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Harish Melwany, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR Ms Cecilia Liang, instructed by M/s Kong & Chang on the instructions of the Director of Legal Aid for the appellant.
PAGE -
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 1udk 1udk i$&8 EnS< EnS< HCMA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong 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.