HKSAR v. TSUI CHUN HUNG

HCMA 1100/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 1998

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is a straightforward case of a Mainland resident coming to Hong Kong unlawfully and remaining here without authority.

2. He was on a bus on 16th September when the police stopped the bus and they found on him a bank card which did not belong to him. He was charged with theft of that card. He had no proof of identity and admitted that he sneaked into Hong Kong that day. He pleaded not guilty to the theft of the bank card saying that he picked up the card on the bus and denied dishonesty.

3. The appellant today, although this is an appeal only against sentence, suggests that he is not guilty of that offence. Since this is not an appeal against conviction, I do not have the transcript of evidence before me, but I note in the transcript of so much of the proceedings as I do have before me, the Magistrate says that whilst he was prepared to accept that the appellant picked up the card in the bus, he did not accept the appellant's evidence that he did not know the nature of the exhibit before putting it into the bag. Nor did the Magistrate believe that the appellant honestly or reasonably believed the card to have been abandoned.

4. The Magistrate said that the only reasonable inference was that he picked up the card dishonestly and intending to appropriate it, that is an inference which the Magistrate was perfectly entitled to draw. In the event, the Magistrate convicted the appellant of that offence and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to the immigration offence, and for that was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. In relation to sentence, the appellant asks me to exercise my discretion and reduce the sentences. The sentence for the immigration offence is the norm for the matter in respect of which this appellant was convicted, and no justifiable complaint can be made about it. The sentence for theft of the bank card was light, given in particular that it was ordered to run concurrently with the other sentence. In all the circumstances, this appeal against sentence must be dismissed.