THE QUEEN v. SZE CHING KUK

-----------------

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Liu JA:

1. On 12 June this year, the applicant was convicted on his own plea for possession of a forged Hong Kong identity card. It was on the same day that he was also convicted, after trial, of assaulting a police officer.

2. Deputy Judge Tong sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment for possession of the forged Hong Kong identity card; for assaulting a police officer, he was given three months. Both sentences were ordered by the Deputy Judge to run consecutively.

3. The applicant feels aggrieved and seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The facts are uninvolved. On 25 January this year, at about 10.55 in the evening, in the course of discharging police duty, sergeant Yan saw a group of over 10 persons playing mahjong in Room 3 on the 11th floor of 316, King's Road, North Point. The door of the room was left open. The sergeant asked to see the identity cards of the people in the group. They were produced and left in the charge of police constable Leung. The applicant offered a chair to the sergeant. The sergeant accepted what would appear to be a kind gesture and sat on it when reinforcement was requested through his beat radio. Then, all of a sudden, the applicant kicked away the chair. The sergeant felt his waist being grabbed by the applicant. Another person in the group rushed at police constable Leung. He pushed the police constable to the ground and ran off in the corridor. At the same time, the applicant fought with the sergeant. The sergeant was pushed against the iron grille of the room opposite. The sergeant managed to draw his revolver, and upon the applicant continuing to advance after a warning, the sergeant fired a shot at the applicant's chest.

4. Before us, the applicant explains that he merely wanted to run away. He agrees that there were perhaps some pushing and shoving in the attempt. He says that with his injury and hospital confinement, he would need time to recuperate. He asks for a reduction of his sentences or for them to be served concurrently so that he may soon return to his family.

5. In sentencing the applicant, the Deputy Judge was invited by his counsel to treat possession of a bogus Hong Kong identity card as being on a par with an illegal immigrant using the same for avoiding detection. That invitation was supported by the prosecution, and it formed the basis on which the Deputy Judge sentenced the applicant.

6. There was nothing unusual in the background of the applicant, and having taking all into consideration, including his guilty plea to possessing a forged identity card, he was given 15 months and 3 months respectively. The sentences passed on the applicant are not in any way inappropriate; we are also not persuaded that these sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently. The Deputy Judge is not wrong in principle; nor is any of the sentences manifestly excessive. The application is wholly unmeritorious, and it is accordingly dismissed.