HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2005

HKSAR v. ALI, BABAR

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
51103-EN-2005-12-14

HKSAR v. ALI, BABAR

HTML content

HCMA 1110/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 9480 of 2005)

____________

BETWEEN

HKSARRespondent
and
ALI, BABARAppellant

____________

 

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 December 2005

Date of Judgment: 14 December 2005

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1.  You pleaded guilty to a single charge of employing a person not lawfully employable.  The magistrate took a starting point of three months imprisonment in accordance with the current sentencing guideline (Secretary for Justice v HO Mei-wa [2004] 3 HKLRD 270).  He reduced that by one third, a discount which caters both for the plea and for the previous clear record (Secretary for Justice v LEE Cho-keung and Others CAAR2/2003).  He reduced the resulting two-month sentence to one of seven weeks imprisonment seemingly because he accepted that you had been deceived by an identity card shown to you by the employee. 

2.  He considered whether he was justified in suspending that sentence, concluding correctly that he was not.  However, I have now had the advantage of having placed before me factual material which was not available to the Magistrate.  It is such as, in my judgment, to justify the suspension of the sentence.

3.  The appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of seven weeks imprisonment is suspended for 12 months.

 

 

(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge

 

Ms Winnie Lam, G.C. of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Mr Mitchell-Heggs instructed by Messrs Jal N. Karbhari & Co., for the Appellant