HKSAR v. NADEEM SHAKUAT

HCMA000768/1998

HCMA768/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 768 OF 1998

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

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	NADEEM SHAKUAT	Appellant

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

Coram : Deputy Judge Muttrie in Court

Date of hearing : 8 October 1998

Date of judgment : 8 October 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I have read the transcript of the evidence in the case before the Magistrate and the Magistrate's Statement of Findings in this case. In effect, there was no dispute that the Appellant had used the travel document, namely, the passport in the name of Mudasar Rehman Kayani, and had made a representation to an Immigration Officer in reliance on that passport. Subsequently, he was arrested and a statement who was taken from him. The statement in effect says that Mudasar Rehman Kayani is not the true identity of the Defendant and it give detailed explanations as to how the passport came into the Appellant's possession.

2. Having heard the evidence of the Immigration Officer and the interpreter who took the statement, and having heard the evidence of the Defendant before him, the Magistrate quite simply believed the Immigration Officer and the interpreter and did not believe the evidence given by the Defendant.

3. I cannot find anything on which the Magistrate can be faulted in his handling of this case. I note that the Magistrate declined to adjourn the matter to allow the Defendant to produce a letter which he had received from Pakistan. I think the Magistrate was entitled to do this on the grounds given by him that the Defendant had had ample time to produce this letter before the trial. In fact, this letter, which is in the form of what appears to be a fax copy, has been shown to this Court now and the problem is that even if it had been before the Magistrate at the time of the trial, I cannot see that it would have taken the matter any further. In effect, this letter simply says that as far as the author is concerned, the passport is in order. But, of course, if as appeared from the statement which was accepted as admissible and as containing the truth by the Magistrate, is correct, then the passport having been obtained through a middleman would, on the face of it, be genuine.

4. I cannot, therefore, find any ground on which this appeal could be allowed, and accordingly it must be dismissed.

	(G.P. Muttrie)
	Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court

Representation:

Mr Paul Ho, SGC, inst'd by Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Appellant in person