Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False representation to immigration officer

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, SHAHBAZ AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA242/2024

On rehearing of the transcripts and evidence the court concluded the prosecution witnesses were credible, the appellants tailored fabricated defences, the 1st Appellant knowingly used the 2nd Appellant's HKID to impersonate while working illegally, and the 2nd Appellant transferred the HKID and employed the 1st Appellant; therefore the elements of all five offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the magistrate's convictions were upheld.
22 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴趙榮花

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1896
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA104/2024

The appellate court, on rehearing all evidence including forensic reports and witness testimony, accepted the trial judge's assessment that P1 and P2 were forged and that the similarity of photographs made the appellant's story implausible; therefore the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant displayed a forged HKID, falsely represented her name and possessed a forged PRC ID, and the imposed concurrent total sentence of 22 months and 2 weeks was appropriate and not excessive.
4 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. SHU MAN (舒曼)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 27
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC17/2023

The photographic and passport evidence were before the trial and the appeal; the judge on rehearing lawfully examined that evidence afresh and rejected the applicant's mistaken‑presentation defence without causing unfair prejudice; the applicant failed to show substantial and grave injustice or any real prospect warranting leave to the Court of Final Appeal, therefore leave is refused.
6 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. WABHI TRI WAHYU

Citation

HKSAR v. WABHI TRI WAHYU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC345/2014

The Court held the individual sentences were within authoritative starting points and appropriately adjusted for plea and aggravating features; concurrency was not warranted given the seriousness of the immigration offences and the theft; consequently there were no reasonable grounds to grant leave to appeal and the application was refused.
20 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. UDDIN MD MOHI

Citation

HKSAR v. UDDIN MD MOHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC434/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's repeated breaches of a life deportation order, prior convictions and deportations, deception to obtain residence, and the aggravating circumstance of offending while on bail; the judge's starting points, guilty plea discount and totality calculations were within proper sentencing discretion.
26 Jun 2015

HKSAR v. GUZMAN BETANCUR JUAN CARLOS

Citation

HKSAR v. GUZMAN BETANCUR JUAN CARLOS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC37/2015

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant provided no good reason for the lengthy delay and, on the merits, the sentencing judge had not erred: the judge properly set starting points (including reliance on precedent for hotel burglary), correctly applied guilty plea discount, and properly exercised discretion in ordering concurrent and limited consecutive elements; the application therefore lacked sufficient merit to justify granting leave out of time.
9 Oct 2014

HKSAR v. ILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO

Citation

HKSAR v. ILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA400/2014

The High Court found no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion, including the starting points, the application of concurrent and consecutive sentences, activation of the suspended sentence, and the discounts allowed; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
30 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. JI GUOBIN

Citation

HKSAR v. JI GUOBIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA243/2014

The offences were serious and date of birth is a material particular, but on the special facts (document likely genuinely issued but containing a false date of birth, no evidence of intent to remain or seek employment, very short stay of about 30 minutes and effectively transit circumstances) the appropriate starting point was reduced to 9 months for each charge; applying a one-third discount for guilty pleas produced concurrent sentences of 6 months imprisonment on each charge, which the court ordered as the total sentence.
31 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. SANOGO, MAMOUDOU

Citation

HKSAR v. SANOGO, MAMOUDOU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA102/2011

The magistrate's sentencing approach was within a proper range: a lenient 12 month starting point for this offence combined with a one third discount for mitigation produced an eight month sentence which was not excessive; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
8 Dec 2010

HKSAR v. MOHAMED NASEER AHAMED FAZLOON

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMED NASEER AHAMED FAZLOON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA827/2010

Given the seriousness of the offences, the established sentencing starting points, the appellant's guilty pleas entitling him to a reduction, and credit for prior immigration detention together with appropriate overlap of sentences, the overall term of 17 months imprisonment was lawful and not excessive; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.