THE QUEEN v. WONG KWAI PUI

THE QUEEN v. WONG KWAI PUI

The sentences of 18 months and 6 months as applied in precedent (R v Yu Wing Wut) were appropriate and not reduced for lack of evidence of changed circumstances; however magistrates lack statutory power to make partly concurrent/partly consecutive orders, so the second sentence must be reformulated to a wholly consecutive or wholly concurrent term; the court reduced the second sentence to 3 months to run consecutively to comply with statutory limits while preserving the same total effective sentence of 21 months.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. WONG KWAI PUI
Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Wong Kwai Pui
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 1987
Case Number
HCMA796/1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; first sentence of 18 months affirmed; second sentence reformed to 3 months to run consecutively; total effective sentence 21 months.
Legal Topics
Forgery of Travel Document, Possession of Forged Passport, Unlawful Landing, Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Immigration Law Sentencing Law Forgery of Travel Document Possession of Forged Passport Unlawful Landing Concurrent Vs Consecutive Sentences

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Wong Kwai Pui

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for possession of a forged travel document
  2. 2 Whether a magistrate may order part of a sentence to run concurrently and part consecutively
  3. 3 Whether precedent sentencing in Yu Wing Wut should be departed from given asserted changed circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences of 18 months and 6 months as applied in precedent (R v Yu Wing Wut) were appropriate and not reduced for lack of evidence of changed circumstances; however magistrates lack statutory power to make partly concurrent/partly consecutive orders, so the second sentence must be reformulated to a wholly consecutive or wholly concurrent term; the court reduced the second sentence to 3 months to run consecutively to comply with statutory limits while preserving the same total effective sentence of 21 months.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; first sentence of 18 months affirmed; second sentence reformed to 3 months to run consecutively; total effective sentence 21 months.

Orders

  • Sentence on first charge: 18 months imprisonment (affirmed)
  • Sentence on second charge: reduced to 3 months imprisonment and to run consecutively to sentence on first charge