THE QUEEN v. LI SUI PUI
Because the criminal record form before the magistrate was misleading and the appellant had not been prosecuted in 1985, the magistrate would have imposed a lesser sentence on the second count; accordingly the court reduces the second sentence from 6 months to 3 months while upholding the first sentence and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. LI SUI PUI
- Parties
- Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Li Sui Pui
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 6 August 1991
- Case Number
- HCMA479/1991
- Procedural Posture
- Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part.
- Legal Topics
- False Representation, Counselling/procuring False Particulars, Prior Convictions and Criminal Records, Consecutive Sentencing, Suspension of Sentence, Misleading Records
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen
Respondent
Li Sui Pui
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate wrongly relied on an alleged prior conviction shown on a criminal record form that was misleading
- 2 Whether the sentence for the second offence was excessive given the appellant's true record
- 3 Whether consecutive sentences were appropriate in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Because the criminal record form before the magistrate was misleading and the appellant had not been prosecuted in 1985, the magistrate would have imposed a lesser sentence on the second count; accordingly the court reduces the second sentence from 6 months to 3 months while upholding the first sentence and the exercise of sentencing discretion to impose consecutive terms was not impermissible.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part.
Orders
- Sentence on second charge reduced from 6 months imprisonment to 3 months imprisonment.
- All other convictions and the 9 month sentence on the first charge are affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCMA00479/1991 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 1991 __________ BETWEEN THE QUEEN Respondent and LI SUI PUI Appellant _________ Coram: Hon. Barnes, J. in Court Date of Hearing: 6th August, 1991 Date of Delivery of Judgment: 6th August, 1991 ---------------- JUDGMENT ---------------- The appellant was convicted in the magistrate s court on two offences, one of making a false representation to an Immigration officer, contrary to Section 42 (1) (a) of the Immigration Ordinance, and the other of Counselling or procuring the furnishing of false particalars to a Registration Officer in contravention of the provisions of regulations made under the Registration of Persons Ordinance. In respect of the 1st offence, the Magistrate sentenced him to imprisonment for 9 months, and in respect of the 2nd to imprisonment for 6 months, and ordered that the sentences run consecutively. The conduct of the appellant in relation to the 1st offence has been related in the judgment given in respect of his appeal against conviction. The 2nd offence arose in this way: when the appellant presented his travel document to an Immigration Officer at Lowu in commission of the 1st offence, he was told by the Immigration Officer to go to the appropriate office for the purpose of obtaining a Hong Kong Identity Card. As the appellant s travel document indicated that he was an eleven year old boy, he needed for the purposes of obtaining his identity card, the assistance of an adult. It was for that purpose that he counselled and procured the person named in the 2nd charge to furnish the false particulars, the subject of that charge. The person who was counselled and procured was charged with the substantive offence of furnishing the false particulars, and was jointly tried with the appellant and at the conclusion of the trial convicted of the offence. In sentencing that offender, the magistrate took into account his clear record and imposed a sentence of 6 months but ordered that it be suspended. In dealing with this appellant in respect of the 2nd offence, the learned Magistrate acted on the basis that the appellant had a conviction for an Immigration offence in 1985 and said, this was relevant to determine the amount of discount to which he would be entitled as compared with the person with a clear record. At the time the Magistrate sentenced the appellant he had every reason to believe that he did have a previous conviction for a similar offence, because a criminal record form shoring such particulars was put before him. It has been revealed to me, however, that criminal record form is misleading in that, although the appellant had been here in 1985 as an illegal immigrant he was not prosecuted, but was immediately repatriated to China. It seems to me that if the learner Magistrate had known that he would not have imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. The total sentences imposed on the appellant amounted to 15 months of custody. I do not think that there was anything wrong with the sentence of 9 months imposed in respect of the 1st offence, nor do I think that the Magistrate was wrong to have imposed a consecutive sentence, although in the circumstances it may also thought that he could not have been criticised had he imposed a concurrent sentence. Be that as it may it seems to me that, had the Magistrate known what I know he would certainly not have a sentence of 6 months to run consecutively with the 9 months. I, accordingly, allow the appeal to the extent the sentence of 6 months on the 2nd charge be reduced to 3 months, and the appeal is allow to that extent. (E.C. Barnes) Judge of the High Court Representation: Mr. A. Sham S.C.C. for Crown. Mr. A. Wong (Chan & Kong) for Appellant : LI Sui-pui PAGE PAGE - - &`#$ 9e<h HCMA00479/1991 Normal.dot Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR HCMA00479/1991 Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 HCMA00479/1991 Normal.dot Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR