Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court affirmed that the sentencing approach in HKSAR v Li Chang Li applies: 15 months is the proper starting point on a plea of guilty for using a forged identity card to obtain employment, and where the offender is convicted after trial a higher starting point (not less than 21 months in the circumstances) is appropriate; applying that principle and finding no mitigating factors sufficient to depart downward, the 21 months sentence was appropriate and is upheld.

Court disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed appeal against sentence
  • Sentence of 21 months imprisonment confirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Mr Prakash Lachmandas Daryanani, SPP of the Department of Justice

MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID

Appellant Counsel: in person

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Months: months 21
  • Starting Point on Guilty Plea Months: months 15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From TMCC 112 of 2009) / Court of First Instance Appeal Against Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant relied on mitigation: clear record, aged 38, married with wife and young son in Pakistan, had come to Hong Kong seeking asylum.
Respondent
The respondent relied on precedent (HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864) establishing a 15 months starting point on a guilty plea for using a forged identity card to obtain employment and contended that conviction after trial justifies a higher starting point (not less than 21 months); there were no factors to reduce the sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    HKSAR v. Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864

    The proper starting point for using a forged identity card to obtain employment is 15 months' imprisonment on a plea of guilty.

  2. 02

    Magistrate's reasoning applied and affirmed by Deputy High Court Judge Longley

    Conviction after trial justifies a higher sentencing starting point than on a plea of guilty; in the circumstances before the court a starting point of not less than 21 months was appropriate.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court affirmed that the sentencing approach in HKSAR v Li Chang Li applies: 15 months is the proper starting point on a plea of guilty for using a forged identity card to obtain employment, and where the offender is convicted after trial a higher starting point (not less than 21 months in the circumstances) is appropriate; applying that principle and finding no mitigating factors sufficient to depart downward, the 21 months sentence was appropriate and is upheld.

Obiter and limits

  • No distinction for sentencing between whether the offender was legally or illegally in Hong Kong (as noted in Li Chang Li).
  • No decision was made on any appeal against conviction; the appellant may pursue an appeal against conviction separately.

Court disposition

Appeal against sentence dismissed

  • Dismissed appeal against sentence
  • Sentence of 21 months imprisonment confirmed

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 24 June 2009

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· 24 June 2009

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID

bjbj HCMA355/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 112 OF 2009) ---------------------------

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID Appellant ----------------- Before : Deputy High Court Judge Longley in Court Date of Hearing : 24 June 2009 Date of Judgment : 24 June 2009 -----------------------

JUDGMENT -----------------------

AUTONUMOUT The appellant appeals against the sentence of 21 months imprisonment which was imposed on him by Mr Smout at Tuen Mun Magistrates Court, following his conviction after trial of one count of using a forged identity card, contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap.

177.

AUTONUMOUT This morning the appellant has informed me that he also wishes to appeal against his conviction. No such appeal has so far been lodged and therefore, I am proceeding today to deal solely with the appeal against sentence.

AUTONUMOUT The magistrate found that the appellant had gone to the Chun Wo construction site on 8 October 2008 and had asked the site foreman for a job. He produced to the site foreman a purported Hong Kong identity card in the name of Mohammad Sadiq. The site foreman took a photocopy of it. The appellant was offered a job to commence the next day. The magistrate was satisfied on the evidence that the identity card produced by the appellant was forged and that the appellant knew that it was forged.

AUTONUMOUT The magistrate was told that the appellant had a clear record. In mitigation it was submitted that the appellant was a 38 year old married man whose wife and young son lived in Pakistan. He had come to Hong Kong to seek asylum.

AUTONUMOUT The magistrate took the view that the relevant sentencing authority for this type of offence was the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v. Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864. He said that it was held in that decision that the proper starting point on a plea of guilty for using a forged identity card in order to obtain employment in Hong Kong was 15 months imprisonment with no distinction drawn between whether the offender was legally or illegally in Hong Kong. As the appellant had been convicted after trial, the magistrate took the view that in those circumstances the appropriate starting point was not less than 21 months imprisonment. Since there was no factor to justify any departing from that starting point, he sentenced the appellant to 21 months imprisonment.

AUTONUMOUT I am satisfied that the reasoning adopted by the magistrate can not be faulted and the sentence of 21 months imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances bearing in mind that the appellant had pleaded not guilty and had been convicted after trial. I dismiss the appeal against sentence.

AUTONUMOUT I have to make it clear that I have not dealt with any appeal against conviction and so it will be up to the appellant to decide what course he wants to take in that regard. (P.K.M. Longley) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Prakash Lachmandas Daryanani, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR The Appellant, in person

PAGE -

PAGE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V 1udk 1udk

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V &`#$ & 6" ABC-j.dot Administrator Microsoft Word 9.0 *4<l Title Microsoft Word 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.

HKSAR v. Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864

Case cited

Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 s.7A(1)

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.