11 May 2007
The appellant's guilty pleas were unequivocal and supported by an agreed summary of facts establishing the elements of the offences; the additional identity documents were available earlier and their late production was deliberate so they do not invalidate the pleas; accordingly the pleas were not nullities and the convictions and concurrent 12-month sentences were upheld.
12 Oct 2005
The magistrate's adoption of an 18-month starting point for the offences and application of a one-third guilty plea discount producing concurrent 12-month sentences was within the range established by authority and not manifestly excessive; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
28 Feb 2003
Offences of producing a false two‑way permit to gain entry into Hong Kong are at least as serious as offences involving forged passports and should attract comparable starting points; in this case, fairness and current authorities required reduction from the magistrate's 18‑month starting point to 12 months, leading to substituted sentences of eight months for each of the two immigration offences and an overall effective sentence of 14 months after appropriate ordering of concurrency and consecutivity.
6 Feb 2001
The magistrate lawfully assessed credibility, gave adequate reasons to reject the appellant's account and the defences of reasonable excuse and mistake, considered but limited the use of evasive conduct to credibility assessment, and therefore the convictions on the three charges were properly upheld; appeal dismissed.
29 Mar 2000
On the facts and current authorities the sentences were not so excessive as to warrant interference; the offence fell within the isolated‑use category but remained a serious offence meriting immediate custodial sentences given risks from unauthorised travel documents and considerations of international comity, therefore the appeal is dismissed and sentences are upheld.
25 May 1989
D1 was entitled to mitigation for prompt and effective cooperation; his sentence reduced from 18 to 15 months. The judge was justified in treating the passport offences of D2 and D3 as separate and distinct and in imposing consecutive sentences; their appeals were refused. D4's sentence was not excessive and his appeal was refused.