香港特別行政區 訴 伍万良

DCCC 1463/2024

[2025] HKDC 2022

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2024年第1463號

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

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

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

判刑理由書

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

1.  被告人被控4項控罪：

(a) 盜竊罪，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第9條（控罪1）；

(b) 管有危險藥物，違反香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第8(1)(a)及(2)條（控罪2）；

(c) 管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第177章《人事登記條例》第7A(1)條（控罪3）；及

(d) 違反逗留條件，違反香港法例第115章《入境條例》第41條（控罪4）。

2.  控辯雙方達成認罪協議。被告人承認控罪2至4。在這樣的情況下，控方願意將控罪1留檔，除非獲法庭批准，不可繼續予以起訴。

案情撮要

3.  被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要內容如下：

(a) 2024年6月17日上午約11時43分，一隊警務人員，包括警員26913（控方第一證人）在新界屯門青山公路洪水橋段V3752號燈柱附近進行例行反罪惡巡邏期間，看見被告人形跡可疑，於是截停被告人作進一步查問。

(b) 經搜身，警方在被告人的褲袋內發現一個內有一支膠管的可再封口透明膠袋，載有懷疑危險藥物（控罪2）。

(c) 被告人隨即被拘捕。警誡下，被告人承認因失業而承受壓力，因此管有涉案毒品作自用。

搜屋結果

(d) 警方之後在被告人面前搜查被告人於新界屯門亦園村VA8639號燈柱附近一間未命名屋的住所，發現床上有一個牙線盒，盒內共有3張偽造香港身份證，其中兩張載有被告人的相片（控罪3）。

(e) 警方隨即再拘捕被告人，並就「管有假證」施行警誡。被告人在警誡下承認之前向一名身份不詳的內地男子購買其中兩張偽造香港身份證，但其餘一張則是被告人最初搬進所租用住所時在屋內拾獲的。被告人又承認因為不想返回內地，所以在獲准留港的期限屆滿後仍逾期逗留（控罪4）。

警誡錄影會面

(f) 警方其後於2024年6月18日上午9時52分至上午10時29分與被告人進行警誡錄影會面。期間被告人承認一些事情，包括以下各項：

(i) 2024年6月17日，被告人到洪水橋區購物，其後在街上被警方截停；

(ii) 警方在被告人身上發現和檢獲的「冰」毒是一名說本地話身份不詳的本地男子之前在九龍旺角通菜街以港幣500元賣給被告人的；

(iii) 回家後，被告人將買來的毒品放在一個可再封口膠袋內；

(iv) 被告人每星期吸食毒品約3次；

(v) 被告人自2024年1月始租用有關住所，月租港幣3,000元；

(vi) 被告人在網上以每張港幣1,500元向一名內地人士購買其中兩張涉案的香港身份證；

(vii) 被告人透過「微信」向買家付款；

(viii) 被告人購買涉案偽造香港身份證，打算用來在香港求職；

(ix) 被告人最初搬進有關住所時，在住所內發現第三張涉案的香港身份證；

(x) 被告人否認使用過任何一張涉案偽造香港身份證；

(xi) 被告人一直在回收物品。他因失業而承受壓力，所以吸毒；及

(xii) 被告人知道憑雙程證只獲准在香港逗留7天。

政府化驗師證明書

(g) 涉案懷疑危險藥物其後送交政府化驗所分析。政府化驗師證實是內含甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的0.01克晶狀固體。

三張偽造香港身份證的檢驗

(h) 警方在被告人住所檢獲的三張香港身份證其後送交政府化驗所檢驗，證實全屬偽造。其中兩張偽造身份證的持有人姓名為李洪亮而號碼為R328774(1)。另一張偽造身份證的持有人姓名為 陳輝，號碼為R670613(2)。

(i) 經檢驗並與政府化驗所保存的對照樣本比對，發現上述偽造香港身份證均欠缺對照樣本示例的防偽特徵，例如微縮印刷、激光刻蝕肖像及紫外線螢光印刷。經顯微檢驗，發現上述證件均以噴墨印刷法印製。

出入境紀錄

(j) 出入境紀錄顯示，被告人2023年3月6日來港，獲准逗留至2023年3月13日。被告人於案發期間違反對他有效的逗留條件，即獲准以訪客身份進入並逗留在香港至2023年3月13日，而他在該日期後仍留在香港。

被告人的背景

4.  被告人現年40歲，已婚，育有一名 15 歲的女兒。他曾於內地就讀至中三便輟學。來港前，被告人與妻子、女兒及父母同住。被告人沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。

判刑原則

控罪2

5.  「管有危險藥物」罪的最高刑期為7年監禁及罰款100萬元，沒有量刑指引。香港法例第134章《危險藥物條例》第54A條訂明：

「(1) 除第(1A)款另有規定外，法庭因某人違反第8或36條，只可對其處以非拘留性判決，除非法庭曾首先考慮懲教署署長有關該人是否適宜接受治療及康復護理，以及戒毒所(符合《戒毒所條例》(第244章)定義者)是否有空位的報告。

(1A) 凡任何人因違反第8或36條或同時違反該兩條而被定罪，而該人-

(a) 在同一法律程序中因犯有其他罪行而被定罪，並因該其他罪行而被處監禁9個月以上；或

(b)在被定罪時，正服為期9個月以上的監禁刑期，

則第(1)款不適用於該人；但在此情況下，如法庭認為適合，在就該人違反第8或36條而判刑前，可考慮第(1)款中指明的報告…」

控罪3

6.  「管有偽造身份證」的最高刑期為10年監禁及第6級罰款（即100,000元）。

7.  上訴法庭於香港特別行政區訴李長利 [2005] 1 HKLRD 864一案中訂定判刑指引。於該案中：

(1) 上訴人被控管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第177章《人事登記條例》第7A條。被告人承認控罪，被判處12個月監禁。他不服判刑，提出上訴。處理上訴的原訟法庭法官認為案件涉及重要法律原則（即管有偽造或他人身份證者是非法入境人士或是合法在港逗留的訪客與判刑輕重是否有關），於是將該案轉介至上訴法庭審理。

(2) 被告人35歲，是內地居民。2004年6月25日，他持往來港澳通行證（俗稱雙程證），合法以訪客身份抵港，並入住位於旺角的一個住所。2004年7月12日，入境處特遣隊隊員突擊檢查該住所，截查上訴人。在特遣隊隊員要求下，上訴人出示一本往來港澳通行證，內載有其姓名和相片，而其出生日期顯示為1969年5月27日。

(3) 特遣隊隊員在該住所搜查，並在一個木櫃內搜穫一張編號為P808320(2)的偽造身份證。該偽造身份證載有上訴人的姓名和相片，但持證者的出生日期則顯示為1971年5月27日。上訴人承認管有上述偽造身份證。在接受進一步調查時，上訴人更承認在國內認識了一名中間人，該名中間人提出以500元人民幣代價為上訴人安排一張偽造香港身份證，以方便上訴人在香港尋找工作。上訴人接納該名中間人的建議，並將相片交給他。四天後，該名中間人將一張偽造香港身份證交給上訴人。上訴人察覺該身份證載有他的姓名和相片，但其餘個人資料都是不正確的。其後，上訴人以訪客身份進入香港，在該住所居住，並將該偽造身份證放進該住所內一個木櫃。

(4) 上訴法庭指：

「29. 本庭需考慮的是有關法例的目的及在香港目前情況該法例的作用。本庭亦需考慮在上述基礎下，管有偽造或他人身份證的適當判刑。

30. 中央政府和香港特區政府目前實施的政策，容許大量的國內人士以雙程證來港旅遊探親。由於雙程證的審批較寬鬆，數額亦較多，合法來港的國內居民大增而非法入境的國內人士則相應遞減。入境事務處的統計數字顯示2000年至2004年間，持不同證件訪港的國內旅客人數由300多萬激增至1,200多萬，而被拘捕的非法入境者數字則由8,500人減至不足3,000人。2002年至2004年間合法訪港旅客因管有偽造身份證而被定罪的人數則增加近8倍。

31. 當然持雙程證來港旅遊探親的國內人士，不能在香港工作，否則會違反留港條件，屬犯法行為。但事實上，國內人士非法在香港工作的情況十分普遍。雖然入境處有大力宣傳及採取各種不同方法打擊非法勞工，但收效不大。

32. 為了解決非法勞工問題，特區政府制定政策，其一是要求僱主在僱用員工時，必需確保員工持有香港非永久居民身份證。希望避免上述政策的約束及能在香港非法受僱的人士都設法取得偽造或他人身份證，以方便在香港非法工作。

33. 香港非法勞工問題嚴重，不但剝奪了部份本地居民的就業機會，大幅度提升失業率，亦會壓低工資，特別是低下層勞工的工資，令他們因入不敷出，而可能要依賴公援。上述情況不但對政府財赤造成壓力，更導致貧富懸殊和其衍生的種種社會問題。

34. 上述情況必須正視，而打擊非法勞工是有需要及有迫切性的。對管有偽造或他人身份證的罪行，法庭須判處有足夠阻嚇力的刑罰。

35. 一般情況，身份證明文件，不可能是玩物，亦不具收藏價值。因此管有偽造或他人身份證的人士，不論是合法或非法在香港，他們目的都是為了掩飾真正身份，以方便他們在香港非法工作。

36. 在上述情況下管有偽造或他人身份證的人士是否合法在香港逗留和其犯罪行為的嚴重性沒有關係。當然非法在香港逗留本身亦是罪行，犯案者亦會受到適當懲罰。

37. 陳文武案的判決是在2000年作出，當時主要打擊對象是非法入境或逾期居留人士，但目前法庭需正視的是非法勞工，特別是持雙程證來港的非法勞工。

38. 本庭認為陳文武案的判決不能適當反映目前香港面對的非法勞工問題和其衍生的其他社會問題。四個月的判刑，對合法來港，但管有偽造或他人身份證以方便在香港非法工作的人士不具足夠阻嚇力。本庭亦認為合法留港人士管有和確實使用偽造或他人身份證找尋工作，二者刑期的差額不應為數倍之多。

39. 為了更有效打擊非法勞工，保障本地工人的工作機會和避免低下層勞工的工資被過份壓低，法庭對管有偽造或他人身份證的罪行要以較嚴勵的方法處理，否則失業，貧富懸殊的情況不會變好，赤貧家庭數目會增加而衍生的社會問題亦會日趨嚴重。

40. 本庭認為管有偽造或他人身份證，即使犯案者是合法在香港，一般而言認罪後的量刑基準應定為12個月監禁以反映該類罪行的嚴重性，和達到阻嚇目的。

41. 假若犯案者，確有出示或利用偽造或他人身份證以掩飾其身份，去非法工作或非法延展其在香港逗留的期限，則認罪後的量刑基準更應定為15個月監禁。

42. 當然上述量刑只對一般案件適用。如個別被告人有特殊減刑因素，主審法官需根據個別情況，行使酌情權判處被告人適當的刑期。」

(5) 上訴法庭駁回判刑上訴。

8.  上訴法庭於HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903 一案，上訴法庭一拼處理3件案件的判刑上訴許可申請及上訴：

Tran Viet Thanh (CACC 54/2011)

(1) 2010年7月11日，警方突擊檢查旺角區的一個住所時發現申請人。警方要求申請人提供身份證明文件。申請人表示沒有任何身份證明文件。經搜身，警方在申請人的褲袋內發現：

(i) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的 偽造香港身份證；

(ii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業工人註冊卡；及

(iii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業安全卡。

(2) 申請人向警方表示：

(i) 他的真實名字是「Tran Viet Thanh」；

(ii) 他由越南到廣西，再於 2010 年 10 月從深圳非法進入香港；及

(iii) 他於深圳支付了 500 港元給一個不知名人士，購買涉案的三張偽造文件，打算在香港用來尋找工作。

(3) 事實上，申請人曾於2007年非法來港，並於同年3月19日就「盜竊」及「非法入境」被定罪，被判處共14個月監禁。2007 年接獲遞解離境令，並於2008年1月18日被遞解出境。2008 年申請人再次非法入境香港。2008年6月20日，他因違反遞解離境令 而被判處18個月監禁。2009年6月刑滿出獄，並於同年6月19日被遞解出境。

(4) 申請人承認4項控罪：

(i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪1）；

(ii) 「管有虛假文書」（控罪2）；

(iii) 「非法入境」（控罪3）；及

(iv) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪4）。

(5) 就上述控罪，申請人被判處共36個月監禁：

(i) 控罪1: 12個月監禁；

(ii) 控罪2: 8個月監禁（即量刑基準為12個月監禁），與控罪1同期執行；

(iii) 控罪3: 16個月監禁（即量刑基準為24個月監禁），其中12個月與控罪1及2分期執行；

(iv) 控罪4: 20個月監禁（量刑基準為30個月監禁），其中12個月與控罪1至3分期執行。

(6) 申請人不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請，

Nguyen Thi Phu (CACC 221/2011)

(7) 2011年3月19日，申請人於深水埗被警方截停。她向警方承認於2011年3月17日非法入境，希望找工作。2010年1月23日，申請人曾因非法入境及使用偽造身份證而被定罪。2010年8月11日發出遞解離境令。申請人於2010年9月21日刑滿出獄。

(8) 申請人承認3項控罪：

(i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪 1）；

(ii) 「非法入境」（控罪2）；及

(iii) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪3）

(9) 她分別被判處15個月監禁（控罪1）、15個月監禁與控罪1同期執行和18個月監禁（即量刑基準為27個月監禁），其中12個月與首兩項控罪分期執行，即總刑期為27個月監禁。

(10) 她不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請。

Guan Cuizhen (HCMA 360/2011)

(11) 2011年4月12日，警方截停上訴人，要求她出示身份證。上訴人出示一張偽造身份證，並承認她於2011年1月18日非法入境。上訴人承認來港希望賺取金錢，但聲稱她從沒使用涉案的偽造身份證。上訴人曾於2008年7月就一項違反逗留條件被判處緩刑；2009年5月，就行使偽造旅行證件、作出虛假聲明及違反緩刑被判處共13個月監禁。

(12) 於該案中，她承認一項「管有偽造身份證」及一項「非法入境」，被判處共21個月監禁，即12個月監禁及15個月監禁（其中6個月同期執行）。她不服判刑，提出上訴。

9.  就「管有偽造身份證」或「管有他人身份證」，上訴法庭指：

“2. Possession of forged identity card or an identity card belonging to another person

(a)Although So Man-king did not specifically address the sentence for possession of identity card which is forged or belonging to another, it is clear from the discussion that possession of the identity card carries the same criminality as the other three offences. As can been seen from the decision of this Court in HKSAR v. Wong Ping (CACC 86/2005), which will be discussed later, Chan and Tam had been relied upon by the Courts as the basis for ordering a 15-month sentence for possession of a forged identity card which could be enhanced if the offender made use of the card to obtain some particular benefit.

(b) In HKSAR and Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193, this Court dealing with the case of someone coming legally to Hong Kong and charged with possession of an identity card held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment should be imposed. If the offender has actually produced or used a forged identity card or identity card belonging to another in order to conceal his identity, work illegally or unlawfully further his stay in Hong Kong, then the starting point upon a plea of guilty should be 15 months’ imprisonment.

3. Concurrent or consecutive sentence

(1) R v Chan Wun Sang adopted a concurrent sentence for using a forged identity card and unlawfully remaining.

(2) In HKSAR v Wong Ping, this Court was concerned with an appellant who pleaded guilty to four offences and was sentenced to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, namely:

(a) First charge (robbery): 40 months.

(b) Second charge (using an identity card relating to another person): 6 months.

(c) Third charge (possession of offensive weapon): 4 months.

(d) Fourth charge (unlawfully remaining): 15 months.

The sentences were to be served consecutively.

(3)The offences were discovered when the appellant was arrested after he produced an identity card belonging to another as proof of his identity.

(4)This Court reduced the total sentence by six months. This was achieved by ordering the 6-month sentence on possession of identity card to run concurrently with the 15-month sentence on unlawfully remaining. This Court agreed that except where there are special circumstances the sentences for these two offences would normally be concurrent…

Our view

17. It is clear that a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for possession of a forged identity card by an illegal immigrant is consistent with the long-established authorities. Further as apparent from Chan Wun Sang and Wong Ping this Court has consistently imposed a concurrent sentence for forged identity card offence and unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The rationale, as stated in So Man-king, is that the substantial element in sentencing for the offences is the unlawful presence in Hong Kong. The mere production of the identity card when an illegal immigrant was intercepted was not regarded as a special feature which justifies a departure from the concurrent sentence approach. This line of authorities is binding on this Court and on the Court of First Instance.

18. In 香港特別行政區訴陳堂 (unrep., HCMA 944/2009), the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of false identity card and unlawfully remaining. A 15-month sentence was imposed for each offence and five months of the second sentence was to be served consecutively to the first, making a total of 20 months’ imprisonment. Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan allowed the appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment. He ordered the first sentence to be altered to 12 months and three months of which was to be served consecutively to the second sentence of 18 months. The Judge distinguished Wong Ping and purported to apply Li Chang Li.

19. The Deputy Judge was of the view that this Court in Li Chang Li provided a guideline for a 12-month sentence and it explicitly stated that to remain in Hong Kong unlawfully is an offence in itself for which the offender should receive an appropriate sentence. He further observed that when a person came to Hong Kong lawfully and in possession of a forged identity card, he commits an offence. If his sentence is the same as another person who came to Hong Kong unlawfully and in possession of a forged identity card, the former may find the sentence unjust.

20. With respect to Judge Chan his approach was wrong and should not be followed. Li Chang Li is not concerned with the tariff of sentence for an illegal immigrant in possession of a forged identity card or with the concurrent/consecutive method of sentencing. The discussion in that case was confined to the disparity in sentences imposed in the lower courts of someone who came to Hong Kong legally and in possession of a forged identity card or an identity card belonging to another person for the purpose of using the card to seek employment in Hong Kong.

22. HKSAR v Li Chang Li did not overrule any previous decisions that had adopted a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment on an illegal immigrant in possession of a forged identity card. In our view the two lines of authorities should remain distinct. The underlining criminality of an illegal immigrant in possession of a forged identity card is his unlawful presence in Hong Kong. This is the mischief that the deterrent sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment is aimed at. The forged identity card must primarily be for the purpose of ensuring his illegal status in Hong Kong would not be so easily detected. If he makes use of the card for a benefit, such as seeking employment, then the 15-month sentence can be adjusted upwards.

23. The enhancement provides a degree of flexibility in arriving at the appropriate sentence even if the two sentences remain concurrent. Wong Ping did not state categorically that there must be concurrent sentences. Whether in a case there should be consecutive sentences must be fact specific. By giving a proper adjustment to the standard sentences, we do not envisage in a normal situation that there is a real need to use a partially consecutive sentence approach. …”

控罪4

10.  「違反逗留條件」最高的刑期為2年監禁及第5級罰款（50,000元），沒有量刑指引。

11.  於HKSAR v Tiongson Patricia Manalad [2002] 1 HKLRD 681，申請人承認一項「入屋犯法」及一項「逾期居留」。申請人在香港「逾期居留」2年多。就該控罪，原審法官以9個作為量刑基準，扣減認罪折扣後，下調至6個月，與「入屋犯法」的2年刑期全部分期執行。申請人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭指：

“11. It has been pointed out by the respondent that there is no tariff laid down for overstaying offences and that the range is wide from a fine (at level 5) to a term of imprisonment up to 2 years.

12. It has also been pointed out to us that the taking up of employment during the period of the overstay is considered by these courts to be an aggravating factor.

13. We agree with those views. It is the length of the overstay that the court looks at and whether employment was taken up during the period of the overstay which is relevant to sentence. …

15. In three of the cases to which we were referred by both counsel, there were imposed sentences of 6 months for overstaying. First of these cases is the case of Tseung Sau Tao, HCMA No.955 of 1992, unreported, where the appellant overstayed for a period of 4 years and 6 months. The second case where a six-month sentence was imposed was the case of Bhattarai, HCMA No.606 of 1996, where the appellant had overstayed for 11 months and had worked during the period of overstay. P. Chan J (as he then was) commented in that case that 6 months was not manifestly excessive and not wrong in principle in dismissing the appeal. However in Bhattarai's case, the learned judge there appears to have focused on the count of possession of another's identity card rather than on the overstaying count nor were any previously decisions cited to support his comments. In the third case where a six-month sentence was imposed, that is the case Iqbal Zahid, HCMA 560/1996, unreported, there Stock J (as he then was) reduced the six-month sentence to 3 months on the grounds that the appellant in that case had surrendered himself. In the judgment he had commented that 6 months was on the high side but not excessive. However, it is noted that in that case the appellant there had one previous conviction for overstaying. The period of the overstaying in that case was a period of 3 years.

16. We were satisfied that in each of those three cases where 6 month sentences were imposed for overstaying, there are distinguishing features from the present case.

17. In eight other cases which were cited or referred to this court by both counsel, the sentences for the overstaying ranged from 28 days to 3 months.

18. In all the circumstances and after careful consideration of the length of sentences imposed from all the cases referred to us, we are of the view that there should be some consistency and the proper starting point which should have been adopted here is one of 4½ months instead of the 9 months used by the learned judge below. On that basis, and giving to the applicant the full one-third discount for the plea of guilty this would result in a sentence of 3 months for the overstaying count.”

討論

12.  因控罪3的判刑會影響到控罪2的判刑，本席先處理控罪3。

控罪3

13.  大律師指，2008年至2019年，被告人曾任職中港貨車司機。2019年，他嘗試創業，經營蝦蟹養殖業務，但同年受疫情影響而結業。此後，被告人曾轉職擔任建築工人及冷氣技工。入境香港前，他萌生了在港求職的想法，並被一名求職中介人騙去人民幣25,000元，來港後沒被安排工作。被告人現已知道他不可在香港合法工作，幸而沒有獲聘。

14.  本席完全不接受被告人對管有偽造身份證的解釋。大律師承認，被告人來港前已知道不能在港工作，因此才購買2張偽造身份證。換言之，他並非被捕後才知悉不可在港合法工作。既然如此，聘用求職中介人的說法完全不合理。況且，如被告人本只是想來港求職，根本無須購買2張偽造身份證。

15.  大律師續指，警方並非於被告人身上檢獲涉案的3張偽造身份證，沒有任何證供顯示被告人曾使用或向任何人展示該3張偽造身份證。沒有爭議的是被告人逾期留港共1年3個月。他唯一留港的原因是求職，而求職時必須出示身份證。被告人的解釋完全不合理；他只是僥倖警方沒有找到證供證明他曾出示或使用涉案的身份證。

16.  因控方無法證實被告人曾出示或使用涉案偽造身份證，根據Li Chang Li的指引，認罪後的刑期為12個月監禁（即量刑基準為18個月監禁）。

17.  可是，Li Chang Li案只涉及一張偽造身份證，而本案則涉及 3 張偽造身份證。大律師同意此乃加刑因素，但沒就適當的量刑基準作進一步陳詞。

18.  於HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching （倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238，上訴法庭指：

“13. When a judge is faced with the task of sentencing for multiple offences he is required as an initial step to identify the appropriate sentence for each offence and as the final step to achieve a total sentence appropriate to the culpability of the offender. The issue with which this appeal is concerned is the decision that the judge faced whether to order any of the sentences for the offences to run concurrently with each other or to be served consecutively.

14. The question whether to order concurrent or consecutive sentences can arise in many different scenarios. An offender may be charged in respect of a number of different, or similar, offences committed on wholly separate occasions over a period of time or with a number of different offences committed in the course of one episode of criminal activity. This case is concerned with the latter situation.

15. In the case of several offences committed in the course of a single episode, the prosecuting authorities might choose to proffer only one charge, where one charge embraces all the criminal conduct reflected by the evidence or, as in the present instance, separate charges for each criminal act.

16. If it chooses the former course, the instances of proved conduct embraced by the single charge but which could have been the subject of separate charges are taken into account in deciding what penalty reflects the true overall criminality..

17. But when the prosecuting authority elects the latter course, namely, to charge two or more offences arising from an episode of criminal activity, the objective is still the same; that is to say, the ultimate overall sentence must still reflect the overall and true culpability, although the sentencing judge must take care, first, to pass a sentence for each individual offence that is appropriate to that offence and the circumstances of its commission and, second, not to punish the offender twice for the same conduct.

18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender by ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct that the courts developed the "one transaction" rule. In essence, this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct, then concurrent sentences should be imposed.

19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an inflexible rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence was not one that was unfair to an offender.

20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended to develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by "one course of criminal conduct" and exceptions to the rule developed… All of this, understandably enough, became material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple offences of which their client had been convicted were part of one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent.

21. There are several problems associated with this line of reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the real point which is not whether two or more offences are committed at about the same time, but whether the second or other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the first. Thirdly, it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is arrived at after application of the rule is still subject to the totality principle.

22. The importance of the totality principle cannot be overstated. It is there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense that he is not punished twice for the same offence and, further, that the sentence is not an unduly crushing punishment but it is also a tool by which to ensure that “the overall effect of the sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation.”: R v K M [2004] NSWCCA 65 at paragraph 55.

23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this court has consistently adopted in recent times, for example in HKSAR v Kwok Shui To [2006] 2 HKC 421… HKSAR v Iu Wai Shun [2008] 1 HKC 79. It is likely to be a more effective approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one which becomes overly concerned with the one transaction rule, although in the case of more than one offence, the court must guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested single episode adds to the culpability of the first offence, it will normally follow that the sentence for the second offence will run wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what extent, if at all, will depend upon an assessment of the totality appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing exercises, the approach is an art, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the case and the offender.”

19.  本案中，控方原可選擇就每一張偽造身份證獨立提控（即3項獨立的「管有偽造身份證」控罪），而每項控罪的量刑基準均為18個月監禁。之後，法庭須根據總刑期原則來考慮該3項控罪的判刑。就算控方選擇以一項控罪涵括3張偽造身份證，判刑原則不變；判刑時法庭必須考慮整體案情及罪責。

20.  明顯地，被告人管有3張偽造身份證比只管有1張偽造身份證嚴重得多。因此，考慮到本案案情，本席將量刑基準上調9個月至27個月監禁。

控罪2

21.  大律師指被告人於案發時因失業而承受壓力才吸食毒品 。首先，眾所周知，經濟困難並非減刑因素。況且，被告人明知無法合法在港工作仍選擇留港，失業或無業是咎由自取。被告人只管有0.01克「冰毒」。本席認為毒品流入其他人手中的風險不大。因此以3個月監禁作為量刑基準。

22.  被告人因就控罪3被判處超過9個月監禁，法庭無須考慮戒毒所報告。

控罪4

23.  大律師指，被告人逾期逗留的時間相比同類案件並不算特別長。考慮逾期逗留的時間，本席以3個月作為量刑基準。

減刑

認罪折扣

24.  被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減，3項控罪的刑期減為：

(1) 控罪2: 2個月監禁

(2) 控罪3: 18個月監禁

(3) 控罪4: 2個月監禁

其他減刑陳述

25.  大律師指被告人過往沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄，在國內一直勤懇工作、盡心照顧家人。被捕後，被告人已即時作出招認，並盡快於法庭正式認罪，節省法庭時間，充分反映其悔意。於還押期間（由2024年6月17日至今），被告人亦作出深刻反省，深明自己犯下大錯，尤其是管有偽造身份證及吸食毒品。他知悉法庭需判處即時監禁刑罰，惟望法庭考慮總量刑原則及盡量寬大處理，讓他可以早日返回內地與家人團聚。

26.  被告人來港前已準備來港求職，根本沒有打算於獲批准的七日內回鄉。明顯地，被告人逾期居留，除非是偷渡，根本無法回鄉與家人團聚。被告人稱在港從沒找到工作，但仍一直逾期逗留，根本沒有與家人團聚的意思；被定罪後，才用家人作為藉口。況且，判刑對家人的影響並非求情因素。

27.  於HKSAR v NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1，上訴法庭已訂明，認罪折扣已是「最高分水線」（High Watermark），涵括良好記錄、悔意及所有其他求情因素，除非有極特殊的求情因素，法庭不應再予以任何額外扣減。本案中，除了適時認罪之外，根本沒有其他減刑因素。

總刑期

28.  本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。控罪3和4均與被告人逾期留港有關。本席下令該2項控罪的刑期同期執行（即共18個月監禁）。控罪2則完全獨立，刑期理應分期執行；考慮到總刑期原則，本席下令，控罪2的其中一個月與控罪3和4分期執行，即總刑期為 19 個月監禁。