HKSAR v. RANJIT SINGH

HCMA 1043/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 1043 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 4044/2008)

____________

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.  This Appellant was convicted after trial before Magistrate C.P. Pang, of “Using an Identity Card relating to Another Person”, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 and one charge of “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.  He was sentenced on the first charge to 20 months’ imprisonment and on the second charge to 3 months’ imprisonment.  The Magistrate ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

2.  The Appellant, who appeared in person, appealed against sentence only.  The grounds of appeal initially were the standard grounds that the sentences were too long, but in court the Appellant indicated that he thought the sentences were ‘OK’, but he wanted to go home.  He was appealing for mercy as his father, reportedly, was ill in India.

3.  The Magistrate found that the Appellant used an identity card belonging to another person to enter premises in order to take up illegal employment as a construction worker.  He was found in possession not only of a Hong Kong identity card, but also of a Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate in the same name as the identity card holder, $8,000 cash and a wallet.  The wallet and contents had been lost the night before by Mr S M Singh, who was PW4 at trial.  He said he did not know the Appellant and did not give permission for him to have the items.

4.  The Appellant is aged 30.  He came to Hong Kong in 2006.  He told the Court he came in lawfully but overstayed his visa.  Although he did file what appears to be at present an obligatory asylum claim, that was not done until some time in 2007 after his arrest for overstaying.  At present, the Appellant is on a recognizance from the Immigration Department while his claim is being investigated.

5.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong.  In respect of the sentence, I note that the Appellant was convicted after trial, which means the appropriate starting point for the sentence would be about 22½ months.  The Magistrate imposed a sentence of 20 months for the first charge.  He took into account that the facts showed was a theft effectively by finding and gave a sentence of 3 months on the second charge.  Although the Magistrate could have made the sentence on the second charge wholly, or partly, concurrent to the first, he took totality into account, and ordered both sentences to run concurrently.

6.  I cannot see that there is any improper in the sentence imposed in either charge by the Magistrate.  Although the court might have sympathy for the Appellant in that his father is ill, if that is the case that is not a sufficient ground for me to interfere with the sentence.

7.  Accordingly, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.