HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 24 June 2009
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From TMCC 112 of 2009) / Court of First Instance Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA355/2009
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 24 June 2009
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From TMCC 112 of 2009) / Court of First Instance Appeal Against Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA355/2009
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 JusticeMUHAMMAD MASOOM KHALID
Appellant Counsel: in personAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Months: months 21
- Starting Point on Guilty Plea Months: months 15
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From TMCC 112 of 2009) / Court of First Instance Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence of 21 months imprisonment was appropriate for using a forged identity card to obtain employment
- 02
What the proper sentencing starting point is for this offence and the effect of conviction after trial
- 03
Whether the appellant's personal mitigation justified a reduction from the established starting point
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 24 June 2009
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
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.