HKSAR v. MOHMMAD, UMER

HCMA 389/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC NO. 1585 OF 2012)

____________

____________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Introduction

1. This is my judgment on the appeal.  The appellant was convicted on his own plea by Mr S Smout Permanent Magistrate of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 and possession of a forged identity card contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177.  On each of these charges he was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and 12 months imprisonment respectively.  The latter sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the former sentence.  Thus the total sentence imposed upon the appellant was 15 months imprisonment and this he now appeals.

Factual Background to the Offences

2. The offences were detected when, on 16 May 2012 at 17.55 hours the appellant, together with another person was intercepted by police officers conducting a mobile patrol on Shek Pai Tau Road, Tuen Mun.  Upon enquiry being made of him the appellant produced the forged identity card the subject of the second charge.  Under caution the appellant admitted having entered Hong Kong unlawfully from Shenzhen and having been given the forged identity card.

Grounds of Appeal

3. The appellant appears on this appeal in person.  In his Form 102 Notice of Appeal he simply complains that his sentence was too severe.  Before me today he has supplemented that complaint by submitting that he would seek in effect the mercy of the court to what he calls “relax” the sentence.  He acknowledges that he now realizes the sentences were appropriate but he still applies to the court for a reduction in sentence.

Discussion

4. The trial magistrate imposed sentences for both these offences that were consistent with appellate authority.  Indeed the sentence of 12 months imprisonment that was imposed for possession of the forged identity card is arguably unduly lenient.  Certainly neither sentence can be said to be manifestly excessive.  The order that the sentence for the second offence should be served concurrently is also correct.  That the appellant claims he was ignorant of the severity of the sentences he might face is not a basis for reducing what are otherwise perfectly correct sentences.

Conclusion

5. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.