THE QUEEN v. LI SUI PUI

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
Criminal Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Sentencing Law False Representation Counselling/procuring False Particulars Prior Convictions and Criminal Records Consecutive Sentencing +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Li Sui Pui

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate wrongly relied on an alleged prior conviction shown on a criminal record form that was misleading
  2. 2 Whether the sentence for the second offence was excessive given the appellant's true record
  3. 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.