HKSAR v. A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE CHANGEZ, KHAN

HCMA374/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 374/2006

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 14655 OF 2005)

_________________

 _________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an appeal against eight offences under the Immigration Ordinance. 

2. I need not specify what they individually are for the purposes of this appeal because the important issue in the case concerned the identity of the Appellant.  He claimed to be a man called Changez Khan and if he is or may be Changez Khan he is not guilty of the crimes alleged against him.  The prosecution have to prove for sure that he is not Changez Khan. 

3. The matter came about because this appellant went to replace his identity card and produced a British National Overseas passport as proof of his identity in the name of Changez Khan and it is quite clear in the Appellant’s favour that he had a passport in that name and other documents which he has shown me, which belonged to the real Changez Khan. 

4. At the trial in the Magistrates’ Court the natural brother of Changez Khan was called to give evidence.  He said that he did not know this Appellant.  A surgeon was called who had performed three brain tumour removal operations on the real Changez Khan and he said that those operations would have left significant surgical scars on the skull of the real Changez Khan, which would still have been apparent in June of 2005.  In June of 2005 another doctor examined his appellant.  He found that there were no such surgical scars on the skull of this Appellant and his opinion is that they would not have disappeared over the passage of time in question here.

5. A government chemist was called who examined the photograph of the real Changez Khan and compared it with the appearance of the Appellant.  He found that the person depicted in the photograph of the British BNO passport was not a photograph of the Appellant.  And finally a fingerprint expert testified that the thumbprint of the real Changez Khan was examined and compared with the fingerprints of this appellant and they did not match.  The fingerprints came from two different people. 

6. The Appellant gave evidence.  He said that his brother had a grudge against him and therefore refused to recognise him and that he was in a conspiracy with the Immigration Department to deny his true identity.  Today at this appeal, the Appellant has repeated those claims to me. 

7. It would be little exaggeration to say that this is one of the most overwhelming cases I have ever come across.  Any one of the matters that I have mentioned would have proved for sure that this Appellant is not Changez Khan.  Taken together it proves to me beyond any doubt that the Appellant before me is not Changez Khan and this appeal against conviction is dismissed.