LUNG SHEK-KUEN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000976/1981

Criminal law- possession of forged document - sentence - where document is an identity card, deterrent factor not irrelevant- 15 months' imprisonment appropriate.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1981, No. 934 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	CHAN SHAU-KIN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

________

1981, No. 967 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	CHAN WAI-HUNG	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

__________

1981, No. 976 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	LUNG SHEK-KUEN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

________

1981, No. 977 (Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	LAM YUET-CHUN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

________

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang & Barker, JJ. A.

Date of hearing: 4 January 1982

Date: 4 January 1982

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. There are before us this morning four cases of a similar nature. These Appellants were all convicted of possession of forged identity cards. The fourth man was also convicted of resisting arrest and sentenced to an extra 14 days' imprisonment, but we think there is no ground for interfering with that sentence.

2. Counsel has suggested that the reason why these cases have come before us is that guidance is sought as to the proper sentence for possession of forged identity cards by illegal immigrants. That probably is the reason why the cases were referred to us, but it would be helpful in future cases where a reference is made to the Court of Appeal that a reason should be expressly stated by the judge.

3. Miss Leong has conceded that it is difficult to say that the sentences imposed on her three clients are excessive. A fortiori she must concede they are not manifestly excessive. What she submits is that they are in effect wrong in principle in that too much weight has been attached to the deterrent factor. The learned magistrate gave very careful consideration to these cases, and has set out his reasons in full. He points out that the number of person found in possession of forged identity cards has risen from a trickle to a flood, and it is apparent that to him the deterrent factor was an important factor. He has emphasized the strain put upon the economy of Hong Kong by the influx of illegal immigrants.  That is relevant because illegal immigrants require an identity card before they can obtain employment. They cannot obtain identity cards lawfully and therefore must resort to forgery.

4. We see no reason at all to differ from the opinion of the learned magistrate. The deterrent effect of a sentence of imprisonment in such a case must be of importance. It is not merely the unlawful entry into Hong Kong which is to be punished: that may eventually be dealt with by repatriation: what is being punished is the resorting to forgery. That is a further and serious offence and the law-abiding members of this community must be protected against illegal immigrants who resort to forgery. We do not think that the deterrent factor is of so little importance as has been submitted. Once it becomes apparent to those who are contemplating unlawful immigration into Hong Kong that the obtaining of forged identity papers will be severely punished, we think that the effect will inevitably be to make people think again before coming to Hong Kong. They will no doubt bear in mind that while they are imprisoned those of their families in China, for whose benefit they thought they were coming, will in fact suffer more, for the illegal immigrant will be unable to earn anything to remit to China. When that is appreciated they will, as I say, tend not to run the risk of coming to Hong Kong in the first instance.

5. The sentences have risen from six months on average to 15 months on average for this offence, because of the increase in the numbers. The magistrates are the persons best able to judge what is required to deal with this situation, and if they think that a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment is appropriate we certainly are not prepared to disagree with them.

6. We are satisfied that these sentences were proper and the appeals are dismissed.

4th January 1982.

 

Representation:

Miss J. Leong (D.L.A) for Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 934, 967 and 976 of 1981.

Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 977 of 1981 in person.

Alderdice for Crown/Respondent.