Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of forged document

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. DANG VAN NGHI

Citation

HKSAR v. DANG VAN NGHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA644/2004

The appeal is dismissed because the 15‑month sentence for possession of a forged Hong Kong identity card accords with established authority for a first offender using the document to obtain employment or remain in Hong Kong, the separate sentences for the forged certificate and overstaying are within current sentencing practice, and there was no misdirection or failure to consider mitigation that would warrant intervention; consecutive service of the sentences was properly ordered.
14 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. NGUYEN DUY-LINH

Citation

HKSAR v. NGUYEN DUY-LINH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA579/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate had considered the appellant's mitigation (including his wife's pregnancy) and the appellant's prior similar conviction justified the imposed sentence; there was no basis to reduce the 15‑month sentence or the overall 21‑month sentence.
26 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. LE VAN TIEN

Citation

HKSAR v. LE VAN TIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA165/1998

The High Court concluded the Magistrate applied appropriate sentencing principles (guilty plea reduction and totality) and that the appellant's humanitarian claims were not credibly established; therefore the sentences were not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
1 May 1997

R. v. HUANG JIAN RONG

Citation

R. v. HUANG JIAN RONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA251/1997

The forgery of the Honduran passport was undisputed, the magistrate permissibly rejected the appellant's explanation based on credibility and surrounding evidence including use of the name LI Wong, the admissibility objection under s.17(a)(1) was not raised at trial and therefore cannot be relied on on appeal, and there was ample evidence to support convictions for possession of a forged document and possession of a false document.
1 Oct 1996

R. v. PHAM DINH QUYET

Citation

R. v. PHAM DINH QUYET
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA900/1996

The learned Magistrate correctly applied the guideline in R. v. SO Man-king and there was no basis to depart from a 15 month sentence for remaining in Hong Kong without authority; the consecutive one month sentence for possession of a forged Vietnamese Refugee Card stands, and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Sept 1996

R. v. NGUYEN THI THAM

Citation

R. v. NGUYEN THI THAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA747/1996

The magistrate's sentences for counts 1 and 3 were manifestly inadequate; apply an 18‑month starting point for a multiple reoffender on possession of a forged Vietnamese Refugee Card and apply So Man King principles (with slight reduction) to Vietnamese illegal immigrants; set aside the original sentences, impose 13 months for count one and 15 months for count three, make counts one, two and three concurrent and activate the 10‑month suspended sentence to run consecutively.
15 Aug 1996

R. v. NGUYEN QUANG TUAN

Citation

R. v. NGUYEN QUANG TUAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA725/1996

The magistrate did not err in law or principle: individual sentences fell within recognised starting points and statutory limits, the magistrate was entitled to treat the offences as distinct despite temporal proximity of about one month, and the aggregate 12 months did not offend the totality principle; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
1 Mar 1996

THE QUEEN v. LE DANG SON

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LE DANG SON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/1996

The original individual sentences were within the normal range and therefore legally proper; however the court exercised mercy by ordering that the sentences be served concurrently rather than consecutively.
23 Jan 1996

R. v. BUI NGOC BICH

Citation

R. v. BUI NGOC BICH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1193/1995

The consecutive sentences of six months and two months were proper, but the appeal was allowed on compassionate grounds to permit immediate release of the pregnant appellant who was due for release in March.
24 May 1995

R. v. NGUYEN VAN PHONG

Citation

R. v. NGUYEN VAN PHONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA121/1995

The court reduced the sentence on the second count to a term permitting the appellant's release immediately, concluding that given the circumstances the original sentence was excessive; the resulting effective sentence on the second count is equivalent to nine months and the appellant remains in immigration custody pending deportation.