HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1995

R. v. RAJA MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
16491-EN-1995-06-09

R. v. RAJA MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN

HTML content

HCMA000395/1995

IN THE HIGH COURT

1995, No. 395
Magistracy Appeal

___________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
RAJA MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN

___________

 

Coram: Hon Litton, V.P. sitting as an additional High Court Judge

Date of hearing: 9 June 1995

Date of judgment: 9 June 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

 

Litton, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted by Mrs Judianna Barnes at the Kwun Tong Magistracy on two charges: one of possession of an identity card replacement form issued under the Immigration Ordinance which related to another person and the other charge was breach of a condition of stay contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance.

2. The facts very briefly were that on 5 March this year the appellant was stopped by the police. When asked to disclose his identity he produced the form which constituted the offence in the first charge. And when further inquiries were made it was discovered that he had entered Hong Kong and had been permitted to remain until 2 January 1994 after which his stay was unlawful.

3. The magistrate imposed sentences of three months' imprisonment consecutively making a total of six months. The magistrate had taken into account all relevant circumstances. The sentences are not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Wesley W.C. Wong (Crown Prosecutor) for Respondent/Crown

Appellant in person

(Henry Litton)
Vice President