HKSAR v. GUO PING ZHANG

HCMA 88/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 37 OF 2003)

_______________

________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant appeared in person today on his appeal against the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed on him for one charge of "Using a Copy of a False Instrument". The copied instrument was a forged Hong Kong identity card. The only ground of appeal was that the sentence was too severe.

2. The facts to which the Appellant pleaded guilty showed that he was questioned during a routine police check of workers on a renovation project. The Appellant had no identity card and produced a two-way permit which was due to expire 2 days later. He told the officer he had produced a copy of a forged identity card to the contractor. The contractor confirmed that the Appellant had produced the copy identity card - this, when checked by the Immigration Department, was found to bear a different photograph from the original.

3. In sentencing, the Magistrate took into account the Appellant's plea of guilty, the fact that he was in Hong Kong legally, his family and financial circumstances, and also his health condition. The Appellant told the Magistrate he was a farmer working in China with his wife who was also a farmer. They had two children and he had come to Hong Kong because he could not find a job.

4. Today the Appellant told the Court that he has three dependents, his grandfather, his father who has been injured at work and his wife who had anaemia, as well as two children who were still at school. He asked for a reduction of sentence.

5. The Magistrate adopted the sentence suggested in HKSAR v. Chan Man-mo [2001] 1 HKLRD 121 Category (5), "a person using a forged identity card to obtain employment when legally present in Hong Kong can expect a sentence of around 12 months' imprisonment". That was the sentence the Magistrate imposed.

6. There is nothing excessive or wrong in principle in that sentence. This appeal against sentence is dismissed.