THE QUEEN v. SO FUK LIK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1594 OF 1990

___________

BETWEEN

__________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This appellant was with two others dealt with on the same occasion in the Magistrate's Court in respect of an offence of possession of an unlawfully obtained travel document. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months. One of the other defendants dealt with at the same time, for the same type of offence, was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.

2. The reason for the difference in sentences was that, the age of this appellant was shown on the charge sheet as 20, and that of the other, who was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months, was shown as 18. It now appears that the correct date of this appellant at the time he was sentenced was also 18. There is no doubt from the record that, had the learned magistrate been aware of this fact, he would have sentenced this appellant to a sentence of imprisonment for 12 months.

3. For that reason and that reason only, I allow his appeal, quash the sentence, and substitute there the sentence which the learned magistrate would have imposed, had he been aware of the appellant's correct age.

4. The sentence I substitute is imprisonment for 12 months. The appeal was allowed to that extent.