HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2006

HKSAR v. NGUYEN, THI BICH PHUONG

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
53118-EN-2006-06-23

HKSAR v. NGUYEN, THI BICH PHUONG

HTML content

HCMA 371/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 1244/2006)

____________

BETWEEN

HKSARRespondent
and
NGUYEN, THI BICH PHUONGApplicant

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 23 June 2006

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

 

1.  You were convicted, after trial, of a single charge of possession of a forged identity card contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 and sentenced to serve a period of 15 months imprisonment. 

2.  The magistrate correctly referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v LI Chang Li HCMA935/2004 in which the appropriate sentence for mere possession of a forged identity card is indicated to be 18 months imprisonment after trial.  The Magistrate reduced that sentence saying she took into account your personal circumstances.

3.  There is nothing before me today which was not before the magistrate.  The sentence is correct.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

 (A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge

Miss Lily Ho, SGC, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant:  Madam Nguyen Thi Bich Phuong, in person being present