HKSAR v. SUNIL KUMAR
HTML content
HCMA 202/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 202 OF 2008
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 7502/2007)
----------------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| HKSAR | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| SUNIL KUMAR | Appellant |
----------------------
Before: Hon Beeson J in Court
Date of Hearing: 18 July 2008
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2008
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
1. This Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy after trial on one count of “using an identity card related to another person” and was sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months. He was convicted on his own plea of one charge of breach of condition of stay, which was an overstaying, and was sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment. A further breach of condition of stay, relating to his working in contravention of the prohibition against taking up paid or unpaid employment, resulted in a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment.
2. The Magistrate ordered all the sentences to run concurrently, making 22 months’ imprisonment in total. The Appellant appealed against conviction on the charge of using an identity card related to another person, but today abandoned his appeal which stands dismissed.
3. The Appellant maintained his appeal against the sentences. The Magistrate, in setting those sentences, followed the guideline of HKSAR v Li Chang Li, HCMA 935/2004 which said that a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was the proper sentence for an offence of this nature after a plea of guilty. In this case, the Appellant was convicted after trial, and the Magistrate considered that the proper starting point for sentence should be 22½ months. In fact, the Magistrate imposed a slightly lower sentence of 22 months.
4. The sentence of 22 months followed the guidelines. The sentences for the other 2 offences were well within the range of proper sentences.
5. There is no justification for interfering with these sentences which are neither excessive nor wrong in principle.
6. Accordingly, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
| (C-M Beeson) Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Mr Vincent Wong, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Appellant, appears in person