Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forged travel document

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. CRISTIAN ALBERTO CARDONA QUINCHIA also known as DANIEL MARTIN CHAVEZ CANO and CHAVEZ CANO DANIEL MARTIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CRISTIAN ALBERTO CARDONA QUINCHIA also known as DANIEL MARTIN CHAVEZ CANO and CHAVEZ CANO DANIEL MARTIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC106/2016

The appeal is allowed in part: the judge erred in taking a 12‑month starting point for possession of 1g cocaine; the proper starting point is 6 months and after a one‑third guilty plea discount the sentence for that charge is 4 months with 2 months to run consecutively to the sentence for using a forged passport; the order that the breach of deportation order sentence run consecutively to the forged passport sentence is appropriate; total sentence reduced to 34 months' imprisonment.
23 Nov 2016

HKSAR v. CRISTIAN ALBERTO CARDONA QUINCHIA also known as DANIEL MARTIN CHAVEZ CANO and CHAVEZ CANO DANIEL MARTIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CRISTIAN ALBERTO CARDONA QUINCHIA also known as DANIEL MARTIN CHAVEZ CANO and CHAVEZ CANO DANIEL MARTIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC106/2016

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted (except ground 3) because the judge misinterpreted Wabhi Tri‑Wahyu and there are arguable errors on whether consecutive sentences were justified and whether the sentencing range applied to the drug possession charge was unduly restrictive, making appellate consideration necessary.
8 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. WU WEI TIAN

Citation

HKSAR v. WU WEI TIAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA957/2003

The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate was entitled to regard the offence as premeditated and to take into account the changed factual context (increased ease of two-way permits and prevalence of forged documents) and the specific safety risk posed by possession of a forged construction industry card; these reasons justified imposing 8 months imprisonment concurrent on each count and did not make the sentences manifestly excessive.
20 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. PAK WAN LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. PAK WAN LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC573/1998

Court of Appeal held that a 27-month starting point for the offence of using a forged travel document is appropriate, that the applicant was entitled to both the one-third plea discount and an additional overall 10% discount for giving assistance, and that the two offences a few days apart should run concurrently; applying an 11-month total discount to the 27-month starting point produced substituted concurrent sentences of 16 months each, reducing the overall term to 16 months.
12 Mar 1996

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SAU FA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SAU FA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA39/1996

Although the 12 month sentence was proper, the discovery of the appellant's pregnancy after sentence justified allowing the appeal to enable her immediate release.
5 Dec 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL and Another

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2182/1995

The High Court held that the Panamanian Consul General's letter was admissible and could not be disregarded without logical or reasonable grounds; on the balance of probabilities the passport was forged, the appellant had entered unlawfully, the permission to remain was null and void, and the Tribunal's contrary decision was unreasonable and was quashed, reinstating the removal order.
29 Aug 1990

THE QUEEN v. TONG HUNG-HONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TONG HUNG-HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA891/1990

The magistrate was correct not to investigate the merits of the Chinese prosecution and to adopt an 18‑month starting point informed by authority, but failed to give credit for mitigation and fresh evidence (wife's pregnancy) justifies reducing the sentence to nine months imprisonment on appeal.
16 Mar 1990

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN CHUN LAP AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHAN CHUN LAP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR2/1990

The Court held the sentences of one day and three months were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate for convictions of possessing a forged travel document and unlawfully remaining; it quashed those sentences and substituted terms of 12 months imprisonment for each offender, endorsing the Court's guideline that 15 months could be appropriate after a guilty plea but applying accepted practice to impose 12 months; the Court also found no power to order immediate repatriation as part of sentence.