HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. IKBAL HOSSAIN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
16583-EN-1996-03-01

THE QUEEN v. IKBAL HOSSAIN

HTML content

HCMA001245/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1245 OF 1995

--------------------

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
IKBAL HOSSAINAppellant

--------------------

Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 26 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 1 March 1996

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. This was an appeal against a total sentence of 12 months imposed for using an unlawfully obtained travel document and making a false representation to an Immigration Officer. The sentences passed were 12 months for each offence, to be served concurrently.

2. Mr Macrae who appeared on the appeal submitted that the Magistrate should not have followed the authority of R. v. Javed Asif and Another, M.A. No.1770 of 1990, a decision of Wong J. but should have followed the authority of R. v. Bhagwant Singh-Padda, M.A. No.1447 of 1988, a decision of Bewley J. I agreed. He submitted that the Appellant fell into the fourth category of offenders as set out by Bewley J. in that decision, which suggested that a sentence of nine months should be the proper sentence. It was not there stated whether that was nine months after trial or nine months after plea. I was of the view that as this had become a very much more prevalent offence since that decision, that a sentence of nine months after plea would be a proper sentence. I therefore reduced the sentence in this case from 12 months to nine months and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

Representation:

Mr Kevin P. Zervos, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr A.C. Macrae (D.L.A.) for Appellant

- 2 -

(J.M. Duffy)
Judge of the High Court