Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of forged identity documents

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. SALMAN SHAH

Citation

HKSAR v. SALMAN SHAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA86/2017

All relevant pre-sentence custody as defined by s67A CPO must be credited against the total effective sentence, without double counting; where offences are concurrent or overlapping deductions are applied to the longest or last expiring sentence and calculated as a whole. Applying those principles the magistrate properly credited 40 days against the 22 month TMCC 2032 sentence, took STCC 5298 into account by reducing the consecutive element, and therefore the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
25 Jun 2015

HKSAR v. TANG BIK WAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TANG BIK WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC268/2014

The judge's global starting point and resultant aggregate sentence were justified by the seriousness, premeditation, use of forged identity documents, large international transfers of proceeds and syndicated nature of the offending; the applicant's claimed mitigation (age, health, family, alleged assistance) did not materially reduce culpability, and the sentence of 46 months is not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
10 Jan 2002

HKSAR v.LO SIU CHING

Citation

HKSAR v.LO SIU CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1131/2001

Where a forged travel document has not been used to obtain additional benefits and no other aggravating circumstances exist, sentences for possession of the forged document and for unlawful remaining should run concurrently; the Magistrate's direction for consecutive sentences was incorrect in the present facts and will be set aside.
25 Feb 1991

THE QUEEN v. LIANG GUI BIN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LIANG GUI BIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA960/1990

The appeal is allowed in part because the appellant provided substantial assistance to the prosecution resulting in the conviction of an important distributor of forged documents; that assistance justifies a reduction of each concurrent 18-month sentences to 12 months, and the appellant's initial belief he would go to Thailand does not mitigate the sentence for intending to use the forged passport to get to Canada.
10 Aug 1988

THE QUEEN v. TAM KIT CHEONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM KIT CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA534/1988

The Court confirmed that a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment should remain the basic guideline for most offences under s.38(1) to achieve deterrence, but where the executive's long‑standing policy of non‑enforcement has justifiably lulled individuals into a belief they would not be prosecuted, that conduct is a legitimate mitigating factor warranting substantial reduction; applied to the facts, eight first‑time appellants' 15‑month sentences were varied to 6 months, while a repeat offender's 18‑month sentence was upheld.
10 Aug 1988

THE QUEEN v. CHIU KWAN HOI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHIU KWAN HOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA533/1988

For offences under s.38(1) the Court confirms 15 months imprisonment as the basic sentencing guideline for most cases to secure deterrence; however, where an executive practice of repatriation without prosecution has justifiably lulled defendants into expecting non‑prosecution, that fact constitutes proper mitigation permitting reduction of sentence, while prior unlawful entries remain an aggravating factor.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SALMAN SHAH

HKSAR v. TANG BIK WAN

HKSAR v.LO SIU CHING

THE QUEEN v. LIANG GUI BIN

THE QUEEN v. TAM KIT CHEONG

THE QUEEN v. CHIU KWAN HOI