HKSAR v. EDWARD KYEREMEH

HCMA 675/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 15547/2002)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted of two charges of 'Using a False Instrument' (Charges 1 and 2) and two charges of 'Using a Copy of a False Instrument' (Charges 3 and 4), contrary to sections 73 and 74 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. He now appeals against these convictions.

The Case Below

2. the Appellant was Ghanaian by nationality. During one of his visits to Hong Kong he married a local woman. Thereafter, he applied to the Immigration Department to change his status from visitor to resident. This was refused and the Appellant sought judicial review of the decision. In the course of those proceedings the Appellant made an affirmation to which he annexed a number of documents designed to show that he had substantial local business dealings, which was then passed back to the Immigration Department for investigation. To support his claim, the Appellant produced to immigration officials some further documents in a subsequent meeting. These documents were later found to be false (Charges 1 to 3), and so was one of the documents attached to the affirmation (Charge 4).

3. In his defence, the Appellant claimed that he traveled much on business. In on of his long absences from Hong Kong he had left money to a friend for exporting merchandise back to Ghana. That deal did not come through for a long time but when he eventually returned, this friend did wrap up the transaction and later handed him the documents in question. He had no reason to doubt their authenticity because he had been to see the goods being loaded for shipment. He now accepted the falsity of these documents. He accepted that they were produced to support his application for resident status. He nevertheless maintained that he neither knew nor believed that they were false.

The Magistrate's Findings

4. Having heard witnesses from the four unconnected companies which supposedly issued those documents, and forensic evidence that two of them were written out by the same person, the Magistrate was satisfied beyond any doubt that the documents were false. Similarly, he found the Appellant's account "improbable as to be incredible", and gave convincing reasons for his conclusion. Examples include why, if the Appellant had seen the merchandise dispatched by sea, should there be the air waybill in Charge 4; or why the total value of merchandise as shown on the documents should exceed the amount he had ever given to his friend by US$17,000.

The Present Appeal

5. The present appeal amounts to no more than a regurgitation of the defence at trial. The Appellant is unable to point to anything wrong in the Magistrate's reasoning and conclusion. What he did do was allege that the Magistrate was wrong in saying that he was a brick-layer, where in fact he owned a brick-making machine, or that the Magistrate was wrong on such other facts that are totally irrelevant even if true.

6. The appeal lacks merit. It is dismissed.