THE QUEEN v. LAU KWAI WANG
HTML content
HCMA001111/1995
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 1995
--------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
| AND | ||
| LAU KWAI WANG | Appellant |
--------------
Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court
Date of hearing : 8 March 1996
Date of handing down judgment : 12 March 1996
------------------------
J U D G M E N T
------------------------
1. This was an appeal against a sentence of 21 months imposed for using a Hong Kong identity card relating to another and breach of condition of stay. In her submissions on behalf of the Appellant, Miss Remedios suggested that a distinction should be drawn between the Appellant in this case and an illegal immigrant. However, the evidence was that the Appellant had come to Hong Kong on the strength of a valid Chinese Two-way Permit and had been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong till 1st June 1995. On 3rd April 1995, he obtained a job in a plastic factory by using an identity card in the name of another. He was arrested by the police at the plastic factory in October 1995 when he produced to them his Two-way Permit and the matter of the identity card came to light.
2. This is the fourth occasion on which this Appellant has come to Hong Kong and been found in possession of an identity card belonging to another. Quite clearly the learned Magistrate was entitled to draw the inference in this case that the Appellant had come to Hong Kong deliberately with the attention of overstaying his visa he having obtained the identity card and a job prior to his visa expiring. Obviously, the card was obtained to obtain employment and otherwise further remain in Hong Kong. In accordance with the dictum of Barnett J. in R. v. Shamin Nawaz [1994] 1 HKCLR 195 a sentence of 15 months was not excessive for an offence of this nature. Having regard to the Appellant's previous history, it would not have been wrong in principle to increase that sentence to one of 18 months. The Magistrate in fact increased it to 21 months. This was perhaps a little excessive and not in line with authorities. I therefore allowed the appeal only to the extent that the sentence was reduced from 21 months to 18 months.
Representation:
Mr Prakash Daryanani, C.C., for Crown
Miss Corinne Remedios (D.L.A.), for Appellant
- 2 -
| (J.M. Duffy) | |
| Judge of the High Court |