THE QUEEN v. LIANG GUI BIN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 960 OF 1990

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

BETWEEN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted, following a plea of guilty, on charges of using a forged Hong Kong Identity Card and of being in possession of a forged travel document. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently, and now appeals against that sentence.

2. It is agreed by the Crown that the appellant in this case did have an original intention to come from China to stay in Hong Kong for a short period of time and to proceed to Thailand. The arrangement which he had made in China with those supplying the documents was that he would obtain a forged British passport which would enable him in due course to move to Canada.

3. He entered Hong Kong using legal documents and it is not disputed that when apprehended at the airport he had a boarding pass and a ticket to Thailand. However when asked by the Immigration Authority, he produced to them a forged British Passport and a false identity card. It is said in mitigation that these were handed to him by the 2nd accused in the case and that he did not at the time appreciate that what he was getting was a forged British passport and a ticket and boarding pass to a flight that would take him direct to Canada.

4. It is submitted that the facts of the case take it outside the categories set out by Bewley J. in R. v. Bhagwant Singh-padda and that the magistrate was wrong to use that authorities to fix the appropriate sentence at 15 months and then consider that there were aggravating circumstances such as to increase that sentence to 18 months.

5. The magistrate took into account the comity of nations in fixing the terms that he did and he was, of course, right to do so. There was no dispute that the appellant intended to use the forged passport to get to Canada. I do not consider the fact that he believed he would initally be. going to Thailand as a factor justifying a reduction in sentence.

6. I do have before me, which the magistrate did not, the fact that the appellant did give evidence against the second accused who was clearly a person involved in the distribution of forged documents and with the assistance of that evidence that person was convicted. I am told by Mr Saw, for the Crown, that he gave assistance as soon as it was asked for. He is entitled to a reduction in his sentence for that assistance.

7. I consider this reduction should be reasonably substantial in that there has resulted, as I have said, in the conviction of a person whom I consider from the facts to have been an important link in the illegal operation.

8. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent that the term of imprisonment in respect of each of the charged is reduced from 18 months to 12 months, to be served concurrently.