HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD

HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD

The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the magistrate had erred in ordering a partially consecutive sentence for the identity offence; the appropriate approach was to impose 18 months on each offence but run them concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence from 22 months to 18 months. The court also held that time spent in administrative detention at CIC long before the offences did not qualify for deduction under s67A(1A) and therefore declined to deduct that period.

Citation
HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: KHALID MEHMOOD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Case Number
HCMA716/2014
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance) / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; aggregate sentence reduced from 22 months to 18 months imprisonment by ordering concurrent sentences; no deduction for administrative detention
Legal Topics
Unlawful Employment While Removal Order in Force, Use of Another Person's Identity Card, Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences, Deduction of Pre Trial or Administrative Custody
Source Language
EN
Immigration Criminal Law Sentencing Identity Offences Unlawful Employment While Removal Order in Force Use of Another Person's Identity Card Concurrent Versus Consecutive Sentences Deduction of Pre Trial or Administrative Custody

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

KHALID MEHMOOD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (court of First Instance) / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence for taking employment while a removal order was in force under s38AA(1)(b) Cap 115 was excessive
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for using an identity card relating to another person under s7A(1A) Cap 177
  3. 3 Whether the sentence for the identity offence should run consecutive to the unlawful employment sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the magistrate had erred in ordering a partially consecutive sentence for the identity offence; the appropriate approach was to impose 18 months on each offence but run them concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence from 22 months to 18 months. The court also held that time spent in administrative detention at CIC long before the offences did not qualify for deduction under s67A(1A) and therefore declined to deduct that period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; aggregate sentence reduced from 22 months to 18 months imprisonment by ordering concurrent sentences; no deduction for administrative detention

Orders

  • Reduce total sentence from 22 months imprisonment to 18 months imprisonment
  • Sentence on Charge 1 (taking employment while removal order in force) to be 18 months imprisonment