THE QUEEN v. BOROMEO CHARLES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.1244 of 1995

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This was an appeal against a sentence of nine months for making a false representation to an Immigration Office. In his Reasons for Sentence, the learned Magistrate said this :

"Turning to the question of sentence I reasoned that in the early 90's the usual sentence imposed upon such as offender was nine months see Bhangwant Singh-Padda Magistracy Appeal No.1447 of 1988 a decision of Mr Justice Bewley."

2. That in fact was a misreading of the case, as the sentence imposed in that case was not nine months but one of six months. Furthermore, as the learned Magistrate went on to say :

"In 1993 however it became apparent that the High court had reached the view that nine months for such offenders may be considered a little more than was necessary and that six months should hence forward, he ordered. See Rodriguez Magistracy Appeal No.215 of 1993 and Rio Nirmal Chamdra Magistrates Appeal No.264 of 1992."

However, the Magistrate then went on to suggest that the sentence should nevertheless be one of nine months because :

"I considered however that in the case of this offender the earlier 'tarrif' (then applicable) should apply and there was nothing about his subsequent conduct which persuaded me to adopt a more lenient approach."

3. The learned Magistrate therefore returned to the sentence of nine months which he thought was supported by Bewley J's judgment in Bhangwant Singh-Padda, Magistracy Appeal No.1447 of 1988. As I have already pointed out this was a mistake on the part of the learned Magistrate and the sentence should therefore have been one of six months. The appeal was allowed accordingly.