Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of another person's identity card

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2017

HKSAR v. SALEEM ASAD

Citation

HKSAR v. SALEEM ASAD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA376/2017

Although the Magistrate applied the correct tariffs and was justified in declining suspension initially, the detailed second Social Welfare Report established wholly exceptional humanitarian circumstances — the wife's moderate depressive episode, fainting and other medical conditions and the children's vulnerability — which, together with the appellant's plea and remorse, warranted mercy; the Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence to 4 months imprisonment to permit immediate release.
27 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD

Citation

HKSAR v. KHALID MEHMOOD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA716/2014

The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the magistrate had erred in ordering a partially consecutive sentence for the identity offence; the appropriate approach was to impose 18 months on each offence but run them concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence from 22 months to 18 months. The court also held that time spent in administrative detention at CIC long before the offences did not qualify for deduction under s67A(1A) and therefore declined to deduct that period.
8 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. BASHIR AHMED

Citation

HKSAR v. BASHIR AHMED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA830/2011

Credit of 36 days detention should be given and a modest additional reduction for the appellant's truthful admission and remorse is appropriate, resulting in reduction of the total sentence from 18 months to 16 months while affirming the magistrate's original sentencing starting point.
20 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. GILLANI SYED RIZWAN AHMED

Citation

HKSAR v. GILLANI SYED RIZWAN AHMED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA487/2011

Because there was evidence supporting each conviction and no error in the Magistrate's approach to the evidence, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.
14 Jul 2011

HKSAR v. SHAFIQUE MOHAMMAD

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAFIQUE MOHAMMAD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA418/2011

The court held that a total sentence of 15 months imprisonment was not excessive and was an appropriate sentence for the two offences on the facts presented, and thus dismissed the appeal.
2 Sept 2009

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD ZABER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD ZABER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC50/2008

Court held summing-up was fair and balanced, jury were properly directed on credibility and on lack of adverse inference from silence, applicants failed to show counsel's conduct rendered convictions unsafe, discrepancies raised did not vitiate prosecution case, failure to call the sergeant caused no demonstrated prejudice, and sentences for the 2nd applicant were within guidance; applications for leave to appeal (and for 2nd applicant leave to appeal sentence) were dismissed.
12 Mar 2009

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, YAMIN BUTT

Citation

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD, YAMIN BUTT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA105/2009

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the magistrate's 15‑month sentence for using another's identity card was consistent with established authority and sentencing guidelines, that credit for pre‑recognizance custody had been applied on the unlawful remaining charge, and that disparity with co‑accused sentences did not demonstrate error in the magistrate's sentence.
18 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. SUNIL KUMAR

Citation

HKSAR v. SUNIL KUMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA202/2008

The Court held that the Magistrate properly followed the precedent in HKSAR v Li Chang Li in setting a higher starting point after conviction and that the 22 months sentence for the identity card offence and the concurrent sentences for the other offences were neither excessive nor wrong in principle; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
17 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. MARIETTA AGLIBUT

Citation

HKSAR v. MARIETTA AGLIBUT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1026/2003

The Magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion, having taken into account the guilty plea, personal mitigation and relevant authorities; the resulting concurrent sentences (15 months and 2 months) were not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. MERITA MANEL SHIROMI FERNANDO

Citation

HKSAR v. MERITA MANEL SHIROMI FERNANDO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1005/2002

The magistrate lawfully applied the normal sentencing tariff for the offence of using another person's identity card; the appellant's personal mitigation did not constitute sufficiently strong humanitarian grounds to justify a lower sentence, therefore the 15‑month sentence was upheld and the appeal dismissed.