30 Aug 2018
The magistrate's sentence was within permissible bounds and there was no demonstrable error of principle or manifest excess; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the magistrate's sentence is upheld.
31 May 2016
The magistrate's acceptance of the police witnesses and rejection of the appellant's account was not plainly wrong; the prosecution proved the elements of going equipped for stealing, theft and possession of another's identity card beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions on charges 1,2,4 and 5 are therefore upheld.
6 Jan 2010
The Court held the magistrate's concurrent 15 month sentences fell within established sentencing tariffs for the offences and were not excessive; the appellant's personal and family circumstances did not justify reducing the sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Sept 2009
No exceptional circumstances or special mitigating factors were established to justify interfering with the standard 12 month custodial sentence for possession of another person's identity card; the appeal against sentence is therefore dismissed.
21 Mar 2007
Given the admitted facts that the appellant overstayed and possessed another person's Hong Kong identity card which linked to his immigration status, the Magistrate's application of guideline cases and imposition of 15 months for the identity offence and 3 months for overstaying (to run concurrently) were within sentencing discretion and not demonstrably wrong; the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
20 Mar 2007
The court held the Magistrate's sentencing was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle because he applied appropriate starting points and authorities, gave proper discount for the guilty plea, and balanced concurrency and consecutiveness under the totality principle; therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
21 Sept 2006
The court applied HKSAR v. Li Chang Li, found the appellant displayed and used the stolen identity card to conceal illegal status and further his stay, and concluded there were no special or humanitarian reasons to depart from the 15‑month guideline; appeal against sentence dismissed.
2 Feb 2006
Bail was refused because the applicant, who was significantly out of time, did not appear to have reasonable prospects of obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal given the sentencing guidance in HKSAR v Li Chang Li, deficiencies in the factual record on whether the identity card was used to obtain work, and the risk that bail would be nugatory as the applicant would likely have to return to serve the remaining sentence.
4 Feb 2004
The Magistrate's choice of a 12‑month starting point for the identity‑card offence, reduction by one quarter to 9 months because the appellant had contested the facts (therefore not entitled to a full plea discount), and imposition of a consecutive 2‑month sentence for overstay were lawful and not excessive; the appellant's family circumstances did not justify reducing the sentence and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Jan 1999
The Court held that, absent guideline authority and given the seriousness of possessing another's identity card and its potential for abuse, a starting point of 9 months with a one-third reduction for an early guilty plea producing a 6 month sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore the magistrate's sentence was to be affirmed.