A A
B B
DCCC 1463/2024
C [2025] HKDC 2022 C
D D
香港特別行政區
E 區域法院 E
刑事案件 2024 年第 1463 號
F F
G G
---------------------------------
H 香港特別行政區 H
訴
I I
伍万良
J J
---------------------------------
K K
主審法官： 區域法院法官謝沈智慧
L L
日期： 2025 年 11 月 26 日
M 出席人士： 黎洛榆女士，律政司署理高級檢控官，代表香港特別行 M
N
政區 N
連普禧大律師，由法律援助署委派的薛海華律師行延
O O
聘，代表被告人
P 控罪： [1] 盜竊罪（Theft） P
Q [2] 管有危險藥物（Possession of a dangerous drug） Q
[3] 管有偽造身份證（ Possession of forged identity cards）
R R
[4] 違反逗留條件（Breach of condition of stay）
S S
---------------------
T 判刑理由書 T
---------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. 被告人被控 4 項控罪：
C C
(a) 盜竊罪，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第
D D
9 條（控罪 1）；
E E
F
(b) 管有危險藥物，違反香港法例第 134 章《危險藥物 F
條例》第 8(1)(a)及(2)條（控罪 2）；
G G
H (c) 管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第 177 章《人事登 H
I
記條例》第 7A(1)條（控罪 3）；及 I
J J
(d) 違反逗留條件，違反香港法例第 115 章《入境條例》
K 第 41 條（控罪 4）。 K
L L
2. 控辯雙方達成認罪協議。被告人承認控罪 2 至 4。在這樣
M M
的情況下，控方願意將控罪 1 留檔，除非獲法庭批准，不可繼續予以
N 起訴。 N
O O
案情撮要
P P
Q 3. 被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要內容如下： Q
R R
(a) 2024 年 6 月 17 日上午約 11 時 43 分，一隊警務人
S 員，包括警員 26913（控方第一證人）在新界屯門 S
T 青山公路洪水橋段 V3752 號燈柱附近進行例行反 T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
罪惡巡邏期間，看見被告人形跡可疑，於是截停被
C 告人作進一步查問。 C
D D
(b) 經搜身，警方在被告人的褲袋內發現一個內有一支
E E
膠管的可再封口透明膠袋，載有懷疑危險藥物（控
F 罪 2）。 F
G G
(c) 被告人隨即被拘捕。警誡下，被告人承認因失業而
H H
承受壓力，因此管有涉案毒品作自用。
I I
搜屋結果
J J
K (d) 警方之後在被告人面前搜查被告人於新界屯門亦 K
園村 VA8639 號燈柱附近一間未命名屋的住所，發
L L
現床上有一個牙線盒，盒內共有 3 張偽造香港身份
M M
證，其中兩張載有被告人的相片（控罪 3）。
N N
(e) 警方隨即再拘捕被告人，並就「管有假證」施行警
O O
誡。被告人在警誡下承認之前向一名身份不詳的內
P P
地男子購買其中兩張偽造香港身份證，但其餘一張
Q 則是被告人最初搬進所租用住所時在屋內拾獲的。 Q
R
被告人又承認因為不想返回內地，所以在獲准留港 R
的期限屆滿後仍逾期逗留（控罪 4）。
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
警誡錄影會面
C C
(f) 警方其後於 2024 年 6 月 18 日上午 9 時 52 分至上
D D
午 10 時 29 分與被告人進行警誡錄影會面。期間被
E E
告人承認一些事情，包括以下各項：
F F
(i) 2024 年 6 月 17 日，被告人到洪水橋區購物，
G G
其後在街上被警方截停；
H H
I
(ii) 警方在被告人身上發現和檢獲的「冰」毒是一 I
名說本地話身份不詳的本地男子之前在九龍
J J
旺角通菜街以港幣 500 元賣給被告人的；
K K
(iii) 回家後，被告人將買來的毒品放在一個可再
L L
封口膠袋內；
M M
N (iv) 被告人每星期吸食毒品約 3 次； N
O O
(v) 被告人自 2024 年 1 月始租用有關住所，月租
P P
港幣 3,000 元；
Q Q
(vi) 被告人在網上以每張港幣 1,500 元向一名內
R R
地人士購買其中兩張涉案的香港身份證；
S S
T (vii) 被告人透過「微信」向買家付款； T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(viii) 被告人購買涉案偽造香港身份證，打算用來
C 在香港求職； C
D D
(ix) 被告人最初搬進有關住所時，在住所內發現
E E
第三張涉案的香港身份證；
F F
(x) 被告人否認使用過任何一張涉案偽造香港身
G G
份證；
H H
I
(xi) 被告人一直在回收物品。他因失業而承受壓 I
力，所以吸毒；及
J J
K (xii) 被告人知道憑雙程證只獲准在香港逗留 7 天。 K
L L
政府化驗師證明書
M M
N (g) 涉案懷疑危險藥物其後送交政府化驗所分析。政府 N
化驗師證實是內含甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的 0.01 克晶
O O
狀固體。
P P
Q 三張偽造香港身份證的檢驗 Q
R R
(h) 警方在被告人住所檢獲的三張香港身份證其後送
S 交政府化驗所檢驗，證實全屬偽造。其中兩張偽造 S
T 身份證的持有人姓名為李洪亮而號碼為 T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
R328774(1)。另一張偽造身份證的持有人姓名為 陳
C 輝，號碼為 R670613(2)。 C
D D
(i) 經檢驗並與政府化驗所保存的對照樣本比對，發現
E E
上述偽造香港身份證均欠缺對照樣本示例的防偽
F 特徵，例如微縮印刷、激光刻蝕肖像及紫外線螢光 F
印刷。經顯微檢驗，發現上述證件均以噴墨印刷法
G G
印製。
H H
I 出入境紀錄 I
J J
(j) 出入境紀錄顯示，被告人 2023 年 3 月 6 日來港，獲
K 准逗留至 2023 年 3 月 13 日。被告人於案發期間違 K
L 反對他有效的逗留條件，即獲准以訪客身份進入並 L
逗留在香港至 2023 年 3 月 13 日，而他在該日期後
M M
仍留在香港。
N N
O 被告人的背景 O
P P
4. 被告人現年 40 歲，已婚，育有一名 15 歲的女兒。他曾於
Q 內地就讀至中三便輟學。來港前，被告人與妻子、女兒及父母同住。 Q
R
被告人沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。 R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
判刑原則
C C
控罪 2
D D
E 5. 「管有危險藥物」罪的最高刑期為 7 年監禁及罰款 100 萬 E
F
元，沒有量刑指引。香港法例第 134 章《危險藥物條例》第 54A 條訂 F
明：
G G
H 「(1) 除第(1A)款另有規定外，法庭因某人違反第 8 或 36 條， H
只可對其處以非拘留性判決，除非法庭曾首先考慮懲教署署
I 長有關該人是否適宜接受治療及康復護理，以及戒毒所(符 I
合《戒毒所條例》(第 244 章)定義者)是否有空位的報告。
J (1A) 凡任何人因違反第 8 或 36 條或同時違反該兩條而被定 J
罪，而該人-
K (a) 在同一法律程序中因犯有其他罪行而被定罪，並因該其 K
他罪行而被處監禁 9 個月以上；或
L (b) 在被定罪時，正服為期 9 個月以上的監禁刑期， L
則第(1)款不適用於該人；但在此情況下，如法庭認為適合，
M M
在就該人違反第 8 或 36 條而判刑前，可考慮第(1)款中指明
的報告…」
N N
控罪 3
O O
P P
6. 「管有偽造身份證」的最高刑期為 10 年監禁及第 6 級罰
Q 款（即 100,000 元）。 Q
R R
7. 上訴法庭於香港特別行政區 訴 李長利 [2005] 1 HKLRD
S S
864 一案中訂定判刑指引。於該案中：
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(1) 上訴人被控管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第 177
C 章《人事登記條例》第 7A 條。被告人承認控罪， C
被判處 12 個月監禁。他不服判刑，提出上訴。處理
D D
上訴的原訟法庭法官認為案件涉及重要法律原則
E E
（即管有偽造或他人身份證者是非法入境人士或
F 是合法在港逗留的訪客與判刑輕重是否有關），於 F
是將該案轉介至上訴法庭審理。
G G
H H
(2) 被告人 35 歲，是內地居民。2004 年 6 月 25 日，他
I 持往來港澳通行證（俗稱雙程證），合法以訪客身 I
份抵港，並入住位於旺角的一個住所。2004 年 7 月
J J
12 日，入境處特遣隊隊員突擊檢查該住所，截查上
K K
訴人。在特遣隊隊員要求下，上訴人出示一本往來
L 港澳通行證，內載有其姓名和相片，而其出生日期 L
M
顯示為 1969 年 5 月 27 日。 M
N N
(3) 特遣隊隊員在該住所搜查，並在一個木櫃內搜穫一
O 張編號為 P808320(2)的偽造身份證。該偽造身份證 O
載有上訴人的姓名和相片，但持證者的出生日期則
P P
顯示為 1971 年 5 月 27 日。上訴人承認管有上述偽
Q Q
造身份證。在接受進一步調查時，上訴人更承認在
R 國內認識了一名中間人，該名中間人提出以 500 元 R
S 人民幣代價為上訴人安排一張偽造香港身份證，以 S
方便上訴人在香港尋找工作。上訴人接納該名中間
T T
人的建議，並將相片交給他。四天後，該名中間人
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
將一張偽造香港身份證交給上訴人。上訴人察覺該
C 身份證載有他的姓名和相片，但其餘個人資料都是 C
不正確的。其後，上訴人以訪客身份進入香港，在
D D
該住所居住，並將該偽造身份證放進該住所內一個
E E
木櫃。
F F
(4) 上訴法庭指：
G G
H 「29. 本庭需考慮的是有關法例的目的及在香港目前情況該 H
法例的作用。本庭亦需考慮在上述基礎下，管有偽造或他人
I 身份證的適當判刑。 I
30. 中央政府和香港特區政府目前實施的政策，容許大量的
J J
國內人士以雙程證來港旅遊探親。由於雙程證的審批較寬
鬆，數額亦較多，合法來港的國內居民大增而非法入境的國
K 內人士則相應遞減。入境事務處的統計數字顯示 2000 年至 K
2004 年間，持不同證件訪港的國內旅客人數由 300 多萬激
L 增至 1,200 多萬，而被拘捕的非法入境者數字則由 8,500 人 L
減至不足 3,000 人。2002 年至 2004 年間合法訪港旅客因管
M
有偽造身份證而被定罪的人數則增加近 8 倍。 M
31. 當然持雙程證來港旅遊探親的國內人士，不能在香港工
N 作，否則會違反留港條件，屬犯法行為。但事實上，國內人 N
士非法在香港工作的情況十分普遍。雖然入境處有大力宣傳
O 及採取各種不同方法打擊非法勞工，但收效不大。 O
32. 為了解決非法勞工問題，特區政府制定政策，其一是要
P P
求僱主在僱用員工時，必需確保員工持有香港非永久居民身
份證。希望避免上述政策的約束及能在香港非法受僱的人士
Q 都設法取得偽造或他人身份證，以方便在香港非法工作。 Q
R 33. 香港非法勞工問題嚴重，不但剝奪了部份本地居民的就 R
業機會，大幅度提升失業率，亦會壓低工資，特別是低下層
勞工的工資，令他們因入不敷出，而可能要依賴公援。上述
S S
情況不但對政府財赤造成壓力，更導致貧富懸殊和其衍生的
種種社會問題。
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 34. 上述情況必須正視，而打擊非法勞工是有需要及有迫切 B
性的。對管有偽造或他人身份證的罪行，法庭須判處有足夠
C 阻嚇力的刑罰。 C
D
35. 一般情況，身份證明文件，不可能是玩物，亦不具收藏 D
價值。因此管有偽造或他人身份證的人士，不論是合法或非
法在香港，他們目的都是為了掩飾真正身份，以方便他們在
E E
香港非法工作。
F 36. 在上述情況下管有偽造或他人身份證的人士是否合法在 F
香港逗留和其犯罪行為的嚴重性沒有關係。當然非法在香港
G
逗留本身亦是罪行，犯案者亦會受到適當懲罰。 G
37. 陳文武案的判決是在 2000 年作出，當時主要打擊對象是
H 非法入境或逾期居留人士，但目前法庭需正視的是非法勞 H
工，特別是持雙程證來港的非法勞工。
I I
38. 本庭認為陳文武案的判決不能適當反映目前香港面對的
非法勞工問題和其衍生的其他社會問題。四個月的判刑，對
J J
合法來港，但管有偽造或他人身份證以方便在香港非法工作
的人士不具足夠阻嚇力。本庭亦認為合法留港人士管有和確
K 實使用偽造或他人身份證找尋工作，二者刑期的差額不應為 K
數倍之多。
L L
39. 為了更有效打擊非法勞工，保障本地工人的工作機會和
避免低下層勞工的工資被過份壓低，法庭對管有偽造或他人
M M
身份證的罪行要以較嚴勵的方法處理，否則失業，貧富懸殊
的情況不會變好，赤貧家庭數目會增加而衍生的社會問題亦
N N
會日趨嚴重。
O 40. 本庭認為管有偽造或他人身份證，即使犯案者是合法在 O
香港，一般而言認罪後的量刑基準應定為 12 個月監禁以反
P
映該類罪行的嚴重性，和達到阻嚇目的。 P
41. 假若犯案者，確有出示或利用偽造或他人身份證以掩飾
Q 其身份，去非法工作或非法延展其在香港逗留的期限，則認 Q
罪後的量刑基準更應定為 15 個月監禁。
R R
42. 當然上述量刑只對一般案件適用。如個別被告人有特殊
減刑因素，主審法官需根據個別情況，行使酌情權判處被告
S S
人適當的刑期。」
T T
(5) 上訴法庭駁回判刑上訴。
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 8. 上訴法庭於 HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903 C
一案，上訴法庭一拼處理 3 件案件的判刑上訴許可申請及上訴：
D D
E Tran Viet Thanh (CACC 54/2011) E
F F
(1) 2010 年 7 月 11 日，警方突擊檢查旺角區的一個住
G G
所時發現申請人。警方要求申請人提供身份證明文
H 件。申請人表示沒有任何身份證明文件。經搜身， H
警方在申請人的褲袋內發現：
I I
J J
(i) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的 偽造香港身份
K 證； K
L L
(ii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業工
M M
人註冊卡；及
N N
(iii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業安
O O
全卡。
P P
Q
(2) 申請人向警方表示： Q
R R
(i) 他的真實名字是「Tran Viet Thanh」；
S S
(ii) 他由越南到廣西，再於 2010 年 10 月從深圳
T T
非法進入香港；及
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (iii) 他於深圳支付了 500 港元給一個不知名人 C
士，購買涉案的三張偽造文件，打算在香港用
D D
來尋找工作。
E E
F
(3) 事實上，申請人曾於 2007 年非法來港，並於同年 3 F
月 19 日就「盜竊」及「非法入境」被定罪，被判處
G G
共 14 個月監禁。2007 年接獲遞解離境令，並於 2008
H H
年 1 月 18 日被遞解出境。2008 年申請人再次非法
I 入境香港。2008 年 6 月 20 日，他因違反遞解離境 I
令 而被判處 18 個月監禁。2009 年 6 月刑滿出獄，
J J
並於同年 6 月 19 日被遞解出境。
K K
L (4) 申請人承認 4 項控罪： L
M M
(i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪 1）；
N N
(ii) 「管有虛假文書」（控罪 2）；
O O
P P
(iii) 「非法入境」（控罪 3）；及
Q Q
(iv) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪 4）。
R R
S (5) 就上述控罪，申請人被判處共 36 個月監禁： S
T T
(i) 控罪 1: 12 個月監禁；
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C (ii) 控罪 2: 8 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 12 個月監 C
禁），與控罪 1 同期執行；
D D
E (iii) 控罪 3: 16 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 24 個月 E
F
監禁），其中 12 個月與控罪 1 及 2 分期執行； F
G G
(iv) 控罪 4: 20 個月監禁（量刑基準為 30 個月監
H 禁），其中 12 個月與控罪 1 至 3 分期執行。 H
I I
(6) 申請人不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請，
J J
K Nguyen Thi Phu (CACC 221/2011) K
L L
(7) 2011 年 3 月 19 日，申請人於深水埗被警方截停。
M 她向警方承認於 2011 年 3 月 17 日非法入境，希望 M
N
找工作。2010 年 1 月 23 日，申請人曾因非法入境 N
及使用偽造身份證而被定罪。2010 年 8 月 11 日發
O O
出遞解離境令。申請人於 2010 年 9 月 21 日刑滿出
P 獄。 P
Q Q
(8) 申請人承認 3 項控罪：
R R
S (i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪 1）； S
T T
(ii) 「非法入境」（控罪 2）；及
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C (iii) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪 3） C
D D
(9) 她分別被判處 15 個月監禁（控罪 1）、15 個月監禁
E 與控罪 1 同期執行和 18 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 E
F
27 個月監禁），其中 12 個月與首兩項控罪分期執 F
行，即總刑期為 27 個月監禁。
G G
H (10) 她不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請。 H
I I
Guan Cuizhen (HCMA 360/2011)
J J
K
(11) 2011 年 4 月 12 日，警方截停上訴人，要求她出示 K
身份證。上訴人出示一張偽造身份證，並承認她於
L L
2011 年 1 月 18 日非法入境。上訴人承認來港希望
M M
賺取金錢，但聲稱她從沒使用涉案的偽造身份證。
N 上訴人曾於 2008 年 7 月就一項違反逗留條件被判 N
處緩刑；2009 年 5 月，就行使偽造旅行證件、作出
O O
虛假聲明及違反緩刑被判處共 13 個月監禁。
P P
Q (12) 於該案中，她承認一項「管有偽造身份證」及一項 Q
「非法入境」，被判處共 21 個月監禁，即 12 個月
R R
監禁及 15 個月監禁（其中 6 個月同期執行）。她不
S S
服判刑，提出上訴。
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
9. 就「管有偽造身份證」或「管有他人身份證」，上訴法庭
C 指： C
D D
“2. Possession of forged identity card or an identity card
belonging to another person
E E
(a) Although So Man-king did not specifically address the
F sentence for possession of identity card which is forged or F
belonging to another, it is clear from the discussion that
possession of the identity card carries the same criminality as the
G other three offences. As can been seen from the decision of this G
Court in HKSAR v. Wong Ping (CACC 86/2005), which will be
discussed later, Chan and Tam had been relied upon by the
H H
Courts as the basis for ordering a 15-month sentence for
possession of a forged identity card which could be enhanced if
I the offender made use of the card to obtain some particular I
benefit.
J J
(b) In HKSAR and Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193,
this Court dealing with the case of someone coming legally to
K Hong Kong and charged with possession of an identity card held K
that in the absence of exceptional circumstances a sentence of
12 months’ imprisonment should be imposed. If the offender
L has actually produced or used a forged identity card or identity L
card belonging to another in order to conceal his identity, work
M
illegally or unlawfully further his stay in Hong Kong, then the M
starting point upon a plea of guilty should be 15 months’
imprisonment.
N N
3. Concurrent or consecutive sentence
(1) R v Chan Wun Sang adopted a concurrent sentence for using
O O
a forged identity card and unlawfully remaining.
(2) In HKSAR v Wong Ping, this Court was concerned with an
P appellant who pleaded guilty to four offences and was sentenced P
to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, namely:
Q (a) First charge (robbery): 40 months. Q
(b) Second charge (using an identity card relating to another
R person): 6 months. R
(c) Third charge (possession of offensive weapon): 4 months.
(d) Fourth charge (unlawfully remaining): 15 months.
S S
The sentences were to be served consecutively.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B (3) The offences were discovered when the appellant was B
arrested after he produced an identity card belonging to another
C as proof of his identity. C
(4) This Court reduced the total sentence by six months. This
D was achieved by ordering the 6-month sentence on possession D
of identity card to run concurrently with the 15-month sentence
E
on unlawfully remaining. This Court agreed that except where E
there are special circumstances the sentences for these two
offences would normally be concurrent…
F F
Our view
G G
17. It is clear that a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for
possession of a forged identity card by an illegal immigrant is
H consistent with the long-established authorities. Further as H
apparent from Chan Wun Sang and Wong Ping this Court has
consistently imposed a concurrent sentence for forged identity
I card offence and unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong in the I
absence of exceptional circumstances. The rationale, as stated
J in So Man-king, is that the substantial element in sentencing for J
the offences is the unlawful presence in Hong Kong. The mere
production of the identity card when an illegal immigrant was
K intercepted was not regarded as a special feature which justifies K
a departure from the concurrent sentence approach. This line of
authorities is binding on this Court and on the Court of First
L L
Instance.
M 18. In 香港特別行政區 訴 陳堂 (unrep., HCMA 944/2009), the M
appellant pleaded guilty to possession of false identity card and
unlawfully remaining. A 15-month sentence was imposed for
N N
each offence and five months of the second sentence was to be
served consecutively to the first, making a total of 20 months’
O imprisonment. Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan allowed O
the appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months’
imprisonment. He ordered the first sentence to be altered to 12
P months and three months of which was to be served P
consecutively to the second sentence of 18 months. The Judge
Q distinguished Wong Ping and purported to apply Li Chang Li. Q
19. The Deputy Judge was of the view that this Court in Li
R Chang Li provided a guideline for a 12-month sentence and it R
explicitly stated that to remain in Hong Kong unlawfully is an
offence in itself for which the offender should receive an
S S
appropriate sentence. He further observed that when a person
came to Hong Kong lawfully and in possession of a forged
T identity card, he commits an offence. If his sentence is the same T
as another person who came to Hong Kong unlawfully and in
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B possession of a forged identity card, the former may find the B
sentence unjust.
C C
20. With respect to Judge Chan his approach was wrong and
should not be followed. Li Chang Li is not concerned with the
D tariff of sentence for an illegal immigrant in possession of a D
forged identity card or with the concurrent/consecutive method
E
of sentencing. The discussion in that case was confined to the E
disparity in sentences imposed in the lower courts of someone
who came to Hong Kong legally and in possession of a forged
F identity card or an identity card belonging to another person for F
the purpose of using the card to seek employment in Hong Kong.
G G
22. HKSAR v Li Chang Li did not overrule any previous
decisions that had adopted a sentence of 15 months’
H imprisonment on an illegal immigrant in possession of a forged H
identity card. In our view the two lines of authorities should
remain distinct. The underlining criminality of an illegal
I immigrant in possession of a forged identity card is his unlawful I
presence in Hong Kong. This is the mischief that the deterrent
J sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment is aimed at. The forged J
identity card must primarily be for the purpose of ensuring his
illegal status in Hong Kong would not be so easily detected. If
K he makes use of the card for a benefit, such as seeking K
employment, then the 15-month sentence can be adjusted
upwards.
L L
23. The enhancement provides a degree of flexibility in arriving
M at the appropriate sentence even if the two sentences remain M
concurrent. Wong Ping did not state categorically that there
must be concurrent sentences. Whether in a case there should
N be consecutive sentences must be fact specific. By giving a N
proper adjustment to the standard sentences, we do not envisage
O in a normal situation that there is a real need to use a partially O
consecutive sentence approach. …”
P P
控罪 4
Q Q
R
10. 「違反逗留條件」最高的刑期為 2 年監禁及第 5 級罰款 R
（50,000 元），沒有量刑指引。
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
11. 於 HKSAR v Tiongson Patricia Manalad [2002] 1 HKLRD
C 681，申請人承認一項「入屋犯法」及一項「逾期居留」。申請人在 C
香港「逾期居留」2 年多。就該控罪，原審法官以 9 個作為量刑基準，
D D
扣減認罪折扣後，下調至 6 個月，與「入屋犯法」的 2 年刑期全部分
E E
期執行。申請人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭指：
F F
“11. It has been pointed out by the respondent that there is no
G tariff laid down for overstaying offences and that the range is G
wide from a fine (at level 5) to a term of imprisonment up to 2
years.
H H
12. It has also been pointed out to us that the taking up of
I employment during the period of the overstay is considered by I
these courts to be an aggravating factor.
J 13. We agree with those views. It is the length of the overstay J
that the court looks at and whether employment was taken up
K during the period of the overstay which is relevant to K
sentence. …
L 15. In three of the cases to which we were referred by both L
counsel, there were imposed sentences of 6 months for
overstaying. First of these cases is the case of Tseung Sau Tao,
M M
HCMA No.955 of 1992, unreported, where the appellant
overstayed for a period of 4 years and 6 months. The second case
N where a six-month sentence was imposed was the case of N
Bhattarai, HCMA No.606 of 1996, where the appellant had
overstayed for 11 months and had worked during the period of
O O
overstay. P. Chan J (as he then was) commented in that case that
6 months was not manifestly excessive and not wrong in
P principle in dismissing the appeal. However in Bhattarai's case, P
the learned judge there appears to have focused on the count of
possession of another's identity card rather than on the
Q overstaying count nor were any previously decisions cited to Q
support his comments. In the third case where a six-month
R sentence was imposed, that is the case Iqbal Zahid, HCMA R
560/1996, unreported, there Stock J (as he then was) reduced the
six-month sentence to 3 months on the grounds that the appellant
S in that case had surrendered himself. In the judgment he had S
commented that 6 months was on the high side but not excessive.
However, it is noted that in that case the appellant there had one
T T
previous conviction for overstaying. The period of the
overstaying in that case was a period of 3 years.
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
16. We were satisfied that in each of those three cases where 6
C month sentences were imposed for overstaying, there are C
distinguishing features from the present case.
D 17. In eight other cases which were cited or referred to this court D
by both counsel, the sentences for the overstaying ranged from
E
28 days to 3 months. E
18. In all the circumstances and after careful consideration of the
F length of sentences imposed from all the cases referred to us, we F
are of the view that there should be some consistency and the
proper starting point which should have been adopted here is one
G G
of 4½ months instead of the 9 months used by the learned judge
below. On that basis, and giving to the applicant the full one-
H third discount for the plea of guilty this would result in a H
sentence of 3 months for the overstaying count.”
I I
討論
J J
K 12. 因控罪 3 的判刑會影響到控罪 2 的判刑，本席先處理控 K
罪 3。
L L
M 控罪 3 M
N N
13. 大律師指，2008 年至 2019 年，被告人曾任職中港貨車司
O O
機。2019 年，他嘗試創業，經營蝦蟹養殖業務，但同年受疫情影響而
P 結業。此後，被告人曾轉職擔任建築工人及冷氣技工。入境香港前， P
Q
他萌生了在港求職的想法，並被一名求職中介人騙去人民幣 25,000 Q
元，來港後沒被安排工作。被告人現已知道他不可在香港合法工作，
R R
幸而沒有獲聘。
S S
T
14. 本席完全不接受被告人對管有偽造身份證的解釋。大律 T
師承認，被告人來港前已知道不能在港工作，因此才購買 2 張偽造身
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
份證。換言之，他並非被捕後才知悉不可在港合法工作。既然如此，
C 聘用求職中介人的說法完全不合理。況且，如被告人本只是想來港求 C
職，根本無須購買 2 張偽造身份證。
D D
E E
15. 大律師續指，警方並非於被告人身上檢獲涉案的 3 張偽
F 造身份證，沒有任何證供顯示被告人曾使用或向任何人展示該 3 張偽 F
造身份證。沒有爭議的是被告人逾期留港共 1 年 3 個月。他唯一留港
G G
的原因是求職，而求職時必須出示身份證。被告人的解釋完全不合理；
H H
他只是僥倖警方沒有找到證供證明他曾出示或使用涉案的身份證。
I I
16. 因控方無法證實被告人曾出示或使用涉案偽造身份證，
J J
根據 Li Chang Li 的指引，認罪後的刑期為 12 個月監禁（即量刑基準
K K
為 18 個月監禁）。
L L
17. 可是，Li Chang Li 案只涉及一張偽造身份證，而本案則涉
M M
及 3 張偽造身份證。大律師同意此乃加刑因素，但沒就適當的量刑基
N N
準作進一步陳詞。
O O
18. 於 HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching （倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238，
P P
上訴法庭指：
Q Q
“13. When a judge is faced with the task of sentencing for
R R
multiple offences he is required as an initial step to identify the
appropriate sentence for each offence and as the final step to
S achieve a total sentence appropriate to the culpability of the S
offender. The issue with which this appeal is concerned is the
decision that the judge faced whether to order any of the
T sentences for the offences to run concurrently with each other or T
to be served consecutively.
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
14. The question whether to order concurrent or consecutive
C sentences can arise in many different scenarios. An offender C
may be charged in respect of a number of different, or similar,
offences committed on wholly separate occasions over a period
D of time or with a number of different offences committed in the D
course of one episode of criminal activity. This case is
E
concerned with the latter situation. E
15. In the case of several offences committed in the course of a
F single episode, the prosecuting authorities might choose to F
proffer only one charge, where one charge embraces all the
criminal conduct reflected by the evidence or, as in the present
G G
instance, separate charges for each criminal act.
H 16. If it chooses the former course, the instances of proved H
conduct embraced by the single charge but which could have
been the subject of separate charges are taken into account in
I deciding what penalty reflects the true overall criminality.. I
J 17. But when the prosecuting authority elects the latter course, J
namely, to charge two or more offences arising from an episode
of criminal activity, the objective is still the same; that is to say,
K the ultimate overall sentence must still reflect the overall and K
true culpability, although the sentencing judge must take care,
first, to pass a sentence for each individual offence that is
L L
appropriate to that offence and the circumstances of its
commission and, second, not to punish the offender twice for the
M same conduct. M
18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender by
N ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct N
that the courts developed the "one transaction" rule. In essence,
O this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged O
arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct,
then concurrent sentences should be imposed.
P P
19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an inflexible
Q
rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a Q
practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the
power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence
R was not one that was unfair to an offender. R
20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended to
S S
develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its
application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by "one
T course of criminal conduct" and exceptions to the rule T
developed… All of this, understandably enough, became
material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B offences of which their client had been convicted were part of B
one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct
C sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent. C
21. There are several problems associated with this line of
D reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working D
rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue
E
that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed E
on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the
real point which is not whether two or more offences are
F committed at about the same time, but whether the second or F
other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the
first. Thirdly, it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is
G G
arrived at after application of the rule is still subject to the
totality principle.
H H
22. The importance of the totality principle cannot be overstated.
It is there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense
I that he is not punished twice for the same offence and, further, I
that the sentence is not an unduly crushing punishment but it is
J also a tool by which to ensure that “the overall effect of the J
sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of
deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation.”: R v K M [2004]
K NSWCCA 65 at paragraph 55. K
23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the
L L
sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which
the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this
M court has consistently adopted in recent times, for example in M
HKSAR v Kwok Shui To [2006] 2 HKC 421… HKSAR v Iu Wai
Shun [2008] 1 HKC 79. It is likely to be a more effective
N approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one N
which becomes overly concerned with the one transaction rule,
O although in the case of more than one offence, the court must O
guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the
second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested
P single episode adds to the culpability of the first offence, it will P
normally follow that the sentence for the second offence will run
Q
wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what Q
extent, if at all, will depend upon an assessment of the totality
appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing
R exercises, the approach is an art, sensitive to the individual R
circumstances of the case and the offender.”
S S
19. 本案中，控方原可選擇就每一張偽造身份證獨立提控（即
T T
3 項獨立的「管有偽造身份證」控罪），而每項控罪的量刑基準均為
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
18 個月監禁。之後，法庭須根據總刑期原則來考慮該 3 項控罪的判
C 刑。就算控方選擇以一項控罪涵括 3 張偽造身份證，判刑原則不變； C
判刑時法庭必須考慮整體案情及罪責。
D D
E E
20. 明顯地，被告人管有 3 張偽造身份證比只管有 1 張偽造
F 身份證嚴重得多。因此，考慮到本案案情，本席將量刑基準上調 9 個 F
月至 27 個月監禁。
G G
H H
控罪 2
I I
21. 大律師指被告人於案發時因失業而承受壓力才吸食毒
J J
品 。首先，眾所周知，經濟困難並非減刑因素。況且，被告人明知無
K 法合法在港工作仍選擇留港，失業或無業是咎由自取。被告人只管有 K
L 0.01 克「冰毒」。本席認為毒品流入其他人手中的風險不大。因此以 L
3 個月監禁作為量刑基準。
M M
N 22. 被告人因就控罪 3 被判處超過 9 個月監禁，法庭無須考 N
O 慮戒毒所報告。 O
P P
控罪 4
Q Q
23. 大律師指，被告人逾期逗留的時間相比同類案件並不算
R R
特別長。考慮逾期逗留的時間，本席以 3 個月作為量刑基準。
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
減刑
C C
認罪折扣
D D
E 24. 被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減，3 項控罪的刑期減 E
F
為： F
G G
(1) 控罪 2: 2 個月監禁
H H
(2) 控罪 3: 18 個月監禁
I I
J J
(3) 控罪 4: 2 個月監禁
K K
其他減刑陳述
L L
M 25. 大律師指被告人過往沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄，在國內一 M
N
直勤懇工作、盡心照顧家人。被捕後，被告人已即時作出招認，並盡 N
快於法庭正式認罪，節省法庭時間，充分反映其悔意。於還押期間（由
O O
2024 年 6 月 17 日至今），被告人亦作出深刻反省，深明自己犯下大
P 錯，尤其是管有偽造身份證及吸食毒品。他知悉法庭需判處即時監禁 P
Q 刑罰，惟望法庭考慮總量刑原則及盡量寬大處理，讓他可以早日返回 Q
內地與家人團聚。
R R
S 26. 被告人來港前已準備來港求職，根本沒有打算於獲批准 S
T 的七日內回鄉。明顯地，被告人逾期居留，除非是偷渡，根本無法回 T
鄉與家人團聚。被告人稱在港從沒找到工作，但仍一直逾期逗留，根
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
本沒有與家人團聚的意思；被定罪後，才用家人作為藉口。況且，判
C 刑對家人的影響並非求情因素。 C
D D
27. 於 HKSAR v NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1，上訴法庭
E E
已訂明，認罪折扣已是「最高分水線」（High Watermark），涵括良
F 好記錄、悔意及所有其他求情因素，除非有極特殊的求情因素，法庭 F
不應再予以任何額外扣減。本案中，除了適時認罪之外，根本沒有其
G G
他減刑因素。
H H
I 總刑期 I
J J
28. 本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。控罪 3 和 4 均與被告人逾
K 期留港有關。本席下令該 2 項控罪的刑期同期執行（即共 18 個月監 K
L 禁）。控罪 2 則完全獨立，刑期理應分期執行；考慮到總刑期原則， L
本席下令，控罪 2 的其中一個月與控罪 3 和 4 分期執行，即總刑期為
M M
19 個月監禁。
N N
O O
P P
（ 謝沈智慧 ）
區域法院法官
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1463/2024
C [2025] HKDC 2022 C
D D
香港特別行政區
E 區域法院 E
刑事案件 2024 年第 1463 號
F F
G G
---------------------------------
H 香港特別行政區 H
訴
I I
伍万良
J J
---------------------------------
K K
主審法官： 區域法院法官謝沈智慧
L L
日期： 2025 年 11 月 26 日
M 出席人士： 黎洛榆女士，律政司署理高級檢控官，代表香港特別行 M
N
政區 N
連普禧大律師，由法律援助署委派的薛海華律師行延
O O
聘，代表被告人
P 控罪： [1] 盜竊罪（Theft） P
Q [2] 管有危險藥物（Possession of a dangerous drug） Q
[3] 管有偽造身份證（ Possession of forged identity cards）
R R
[4] 違反逗留條件（Breach of condition of stay）
S S
---------------------
T 判刑理由書 T
---------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. 被告人被控 4 項控罪：
C C
(a) 盜竊罪，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第
D D
9 條（控罪 1）；
E E
F
(b) 管有危險藥物，違反香港法例第 134 章《危險藥物 F
條例》第 8(1)(a)及(2)條（控罪 2）；
G G
H (c) 管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第 177 章《人事登 H
I
記條例》第 7A(1)條（控罪 3）；及 I
J J
(d) 違反逗留條件，違反香港法例第 115 章《入境條例》
K 第 41 條（控罪 4）。 K
L L
2. 控辯雙方達成認罪協議。被告人承認控罪 2 至 4。在這樣
M M
的情況下，控方願意將控罪 1 留檔，除非獲法庭批准，不可繼續予以
N 起訴。 N
O O
案情撮要
P P
Q 3. 被告人承認的經修訂案情撮要內容如下： Q
R R
(a) 2024 年 6 月 17 日上午約 11 時 43 分，一隊警務人
S 員，包括警員 26913（控方第一證人）在新界屯門 S
T 青山公路洪水橋段 V3752 號燈柱附近進行例行反 T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
罪惡巡邏期間，看見被告人形跡可疑，於是截停被
C 告人作進一步查問。 C
D D
(b) 經搜身，警方在被告人的褲袋內發現一個內有一支
E E
膠管的可再封口透明膠袋，載有懷疑危險藥物（控
F 罪 2）。 F
G G
(c) 被告人隨即被拘捕。警誡下，被告人承認因失業而
H H
承受壓力，因此管有涉案毒品作自用。
I I
搜屋結果
J J
K (d) 警方之後在被告人面前搜查被告人於新界屯門亦 K
園村 VA8639 號燈柱附近一間未命名屋的住所，發
L L
現床上有一個牙線盒，盒內共有 3 張偽造香港身份
M M
證，其中兩張載有被告人的相片（控罪 3）。
N N
(e) 警方隨即再拘捕被告人，並就「管有假證」施行警
O O
誡。被告人在警誡下承認之前向一名身份不詳的內
P P
地男子購買其中兩張偽造香港身份證，但其餘一張
Q 則是被告人最初搬進所租用住所時在屋內拾獲的。 Q
R
被告人又承認因為不想返回內地，所以在獲准留港 R
的期限屆滿後仍逾期逗留（控罪 4）。
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
警誡錄影會面
C C
(f) 警方其後於 2024 年 6 月 18 日上午 9 時 52 分至上
D D
午 10 時 29 分與被告人進行警誡錄影會面。期間被
E E
告人承認一些事情，包括以下各項：
F F
(i) 2024 年 6 月 17 日，被告人到洪水橋區購物，
G G
其後在街上被警方截停；
H H
I
(ii) 警方在被告人身上發現和檢獲的「冰」毒是一 I
名說本地話身份不詳的本地男子之前在九龍
J J
旺角通菜街以港幣 500 元賣給被告人的；
K K
(iii) 回家後，被告人將買來的毒品放在一個可再
L L
封口膠袋內；
M M
N (iv) 被告人每星期吸食毒品約 3 次； N
O O
(v) 被告人自 2024 年 1 月始租用有關住所，月租
P P
港幣 3,000 元；
Q Q
(vi) 被告人在網上以每張港幣 1,500 元向一名內
R R
地人士購買其中兩張涉案的香港身份證；
S S
T (vii) 被告人透過「微信」向買家付款； T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(viii) 被告人購買涉案偽造香港身份證，打算用來
C 在香港求職； C
D D
(ix) 被告人最初搬進有關住所時，在住所內發現
E E
第三張涉案的香港身份證；
F F
(x) 被告人否認使用過任何一張涉案偽造香港身
G G
份證；
H H
I
(xi) 被告人一直在回收物品。他因失業而承受壓 I
力，所以吸毒；及
J J
K (xii) 被告人知道憑雙程證只獲准在香港逗留 7 天。 K
L L
政府化驗師證明書
M M
N (g) 涉案懷疑危險藥物其後送交政府化驗所分析。政府 N
化驗師證實是內含甲基苯丙胺鹽酸鹽的 0.01 克晶
O O
狀固體。
P P
Q 三張偽造香港身份證的檢驗 Q
R R
(h) 警方在被告人住所檢獲的三張香港身份證其後送
S 交政府化驗所檢驗，證實全屬偽造。其中兩張偽造 S
T 身份證的持有人姓名為李洪亮而號碼為 T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
R328774(1)。另一張偽造身份證的持有人姓名為 陳
C 輝，號碼為 R670613(2)。 C
D D
(i) 經檢驗並與政府化驗所保存的對照樣本比對，發現
E E
上述偽造香港身份證均欠缺對照樣本示例的防偽
F 特徵，例如微縮印刷、激光刻蝕肖像及紫外線螢光 F
印刷。經顯微檢驗，發現上述證件均以噴墨印刷法
G G
印製。
H H
I 出入境紀錄 I
J J
(j) 出入境紀錄顯示，被告人 2023 年 3 月 6 日來港，獲
K 准逗留至 2023 年 3 月 13 日。被告人於案發期間違 K
L 反對他有效的逗留條件，即獲准以訪客身份進入並 L
逗留在香港至 2023 年 3 月 13 日，而他在該日期後
M M
仍留在香港。
N N
O 被告人的背景 O
P P
4. 被告人現年 40 歲，已婚，育有一名 15 歲的女兒。他曾於
Q 內地就讀至中三便輟學。來港前，被告人與妻子、女兒及父母同住。 Q
R
被告人沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。 R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
判刑原則
C C
控罪 2
D D
E 5. 「管有危險藥物」罪的最高刑期為 7 年監禁及罰款 100 萬 E
F
元，沒有量刑指引。香港法例第 134 章《危險藥物條例》第 54A 條訂 F
明：
G G
H 「(1) 除第(1A)款另有規定外，法庭因某人違反第 8 或 36 條， H
只可對其處以非拘留性判決，除非法庭曾首先考慮懲教署署
I 長有關該人是否適宜接受治療及康復護理，以及戒毒所(符 I
合《戒毒所條例》(第 244 章)定義者)是否有空位的報告。
J (1A) 凡任何人因違反第 8 或 36 條或同時違反該兩條而被定 J
罪，而該人-
K (a) 在同一法律程序中因犯有其他罪行而被定罪，並因該其 K
他罪行而被處監禁 9 個月以上；或
L (b) 在被定罪時，正服為期 9 個月以上的監禁刑期， L
則第(1)款不適用於該人；但在此情況下，如法庭認為適合，
M M
在就該人違反第 8 或 36 條而判刑前，可考慮第(1)款中指明
的報告…」
N N
控罪 3
O O
P P
6. 「管有偽造身份證」的最高刑期為 10 年監禁及第 6 級罰
Q 款（即 100,000 元）。 Q
R R
7. 上訴法庭於香港特別行政區 訴 李長利 [2005] 1 HKLRD
S S
864 一案中訂定判刑指引。於該案中：
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(1) 上訴人被控管有偽造身份證，違反香港法例第 177
C 章《人事登記條例》第 7A 條。被告人承認控罪， C
被判處 12 個月監禁。他不服判刑，提出上訴。處理
D D
上訴的原訟法庭法官認為案件涉及重要法律原則
E E
（即管有偽造或他人身份證者是非法入境人士或
F 是合法在港逗留的訪客與判刑輕重是否有關），於 F
是將該案轉介至上訴法庭審理。
G G
H H
(2) 被告人 35 歲，是內地居民。2004 年 6 月 25 日，他
I 持往來港澳通行證（俗稱雙程證），合法以訪客身 I
份抵港，並入住位於旺角的一個住所。2004 年 7 月
J J
12 日，入境處特遣隊隊員突擊檢查該住所，截查上
K K
訴人。在特遣隊隊員要求下，上訴人出示一本往來
L 港澳通行證，內載有其姓名和相片，而其出生日期 L
M
顯示為 1969 年 5 月 27 日。 M
N N
(3) 特遣隊隊員在該住所搜查，並在一個木櫃內搜穫一
O 張編號為 P808320(2)的偽造身份證。該偽造身份證 O
載有上訴人的姓名和相片，但持證者的出生日期則
P P
顯示為 1971 年 5 月 27 日。上訴人承認管有上述偽
Q Q
造身份證。在接受進一步調查時，上訴人更承認在
R 國內認識了一名中間人，該名中間人提出以 500 元 R
S 人民幣代價為上訴人安排一張偽造香港身份證，以 S
方便上訴人在香港尋找工作。上訴人接納該名中間
T T
人的建議，並將相片交給他。四天後，該名中間人
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
將一張偽造香港身份證交給上訴人。上訴人察覺該
C 身份證載有他的姓名和相片，但其餘個人資料都是 C
不正確的。其後，上訴人以訪客身份進入香港，在
D D
該住所居住，並將該偽造身份證放進該住所內一個
E E
木櫃。
F F
(4) 上訴法庭指：
G G
H 「29. 本庭需考慮的是有關法例的目的及在香港目前情況該 H
法例的作用。本庭亦需考慮在上述基礎下，管有偽造或他人
I 身份證的適當判刑。 I
30. 中央政府和香港特區政府目前實施的政策，容許大量的
J J
國內人士以雙程證來港旅遊探親。由於雙程證的審批較寬
鬆，數額亦較多，合法來港的國內居民大增而非法入境的國
K 內人士則相應遞減。入境事務處的統計數字顯示 2000 年至 K
2004 年間，持不同證件訪港的國內旅客人數由 300 多萬激
L 增至 1,200 多萬，而被拘捕的非法入境者數字則由 8,500 人 L
減至不足 3,000 人。2002 年至 2004 年間合法訪港旅客因管
M
有偽造身份證而被定罪的人數則增加近 8 倍。 M
31. 當然持雙程證來港旅遊探親的國內人士，不能在香港工
N 作，否則會違反留港條件，屬犯法行為。但事實上，國內人 N
士非法在香港工作的情況十分普遍。雖然入境處有大力宣傳
O 及採取各種不同方法打擊非法勞工，但收效不大。 O
32. 為了解決非法勞工問題，特區政府制定政策，其一是要
P P
求僱主在僱用員工時，必需確保員工持有香港非永久居民身
份證。希望避免上述政策的約束及能在香港非法受僱的人士
Q 都設法取得偽造或他人身份證，以方便在香港非法工作。 Q
R 33. 香港非法勞工問題嚴重，不但剝奪了部份本地居民的就 R
業機會，大幅度提升失業率，亦會壓低工資，特別是低下層
勞工的工資，令他們因入不敷出，而可能要依賴公援。上述
S S
情況不但對政府財赤造成壓力，更導致貧富懸殊和其衍生的
種種社會問題。
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 34. 上述情況必須正視，而打擊非法勞工是有需要及有迫切 B
性的。對管有偽造或他人身份證的罪行，法庭須判處有足夠
C 阻嚇力的刑罰。 C
D
35. 一般情況，身份證明文件，不可能是玩物，亦不具收藏 D
價值。因此管有偽造或他人身份證的人士，不論是合法或非
法在香港，他們目的都是為了掩飾真正身份，以方便他們在
E E
香港非法工作。
F 36. 在上述情況下管有偽造或他人身份證的人士是否合法在 F
香港逗留和其犯罪行為的嚴重性沒有關係。當然非法在香港
G
逗留本身亦是罪行，犯案者亦會受到適當懲罰。 G
37. 陳文武案的判決是在 2000 年作出，當時主要打擊對象是
H 非法入境或逾期居留人士，但目前法庭需正視的是非法勞 H
工，特別是持雙程證來港的非法勞工。
I I
38. 本庭認為陳文武案的判決不能適當反映目前香港面對的
非法勞工問題和其衍生的其他社會問題。四個月的判刑，對
J J
合法來港，但管有偽造或他人身份證以方便在香港非法工作
的人士不具足夠阻嚇力。本庭亦認為合法留港人士管有和確
K 實使用偽造或他人身份證找尋工作，二者刑期的差額不應為 K
數倍之多。
L L
39. 為了更有效打擊非法勞工，保障本地工人的工作機會和
避免低下層勞工的工資被過份壓低，法庭對管有偽造或他人
M M
身份證的罪行要以較嚴勵的方法處理，否則失業，貧富懸殊
的情況不會變好，赤貧家庭數目會增加而衍生的社會問題亦
N N
會日趨嚴重。
O 40. 本庭認為管有偽造或他人身份證，即使犯案者是合法在 O
香港，一般而言認罪後的量刑基準應定為 12 個月監禁以反
P
映該類罪行的嚴重性，和達到阻嚇目的。 P
41. 假若犯案者，確有出示或利用偽造或他人身份證以掩飾
Q 其身份，去非法工作或非法延展其在香港逗留的期限，則認 Q
罪後的量刑基準更應定為 15 個月監禁。
R R
42. 當然上述量刑只對一般案件適用。如個別被告人有特殊
減刑因素，主審法官需根據個別情況，行使酌情權判處被告
S S
人適當的刑期。」
T T
(5) 上訴法庭駁回判刑上訴。
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 8. 上訴法庭於 HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903 C
一案，上訴法庭一拼處理 3 件案件的判刑上訴許可申請及上訴：
D D
E Tran Viet Thanh (CACC 54/2011) E
F F
(1) 2010 年 7 月 11 日，警方突擊檢查旺角區的一個住
G G
所時發現申請人。警方要求申請人提供身份證明文
H 件。申請人表示沒有任何身份證明文件。經搜身， H
警方在申請人的褲袋內發現：
I I
J J
(i) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的 偽造香港身份
K 證； K
L L
(ii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業工
M M
人註冊卡；及
N N
(iii) 一張姓名為「Lei Gie Ceng」的偽造建造業安
O O
全卡。
P P
Q
(2) 申請人向警方表示： Q
R R
(i) 他的真實名字是「Tran Viet Thanh」；
S S
(ii) 他由越南到廣西，再於 2010 年 10 月從深圳
T T
非法進入香港；及
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C (iii) 他於深圳支付了 500 港元給一個不知名人 C
士，購買涉案的三張偽造文件，打算在香港用
D D
來尋找工作。
E E
F
(3) 事實上，申請人曾於 2007 年非法來港，並於同年 3 F
月 19 日就「盜竊」及「非法入境」被定罪，被判處
G G
共 14 個月監禁。2007 年接獲遞解離境令，並於 2008
H H
年 1 月 18 日被遞解出境。2008 年申請人再次非法
I 入境香港。2008 年 6 月 20 日，他因違反遞解離境 I
令 而被判處 18 個月監禁。2009 年 6 月刑滿出獄，
J J
並於同年 6 月 19 日被遞解出境。
K K
L (4) 申請人承認 4 項控罪： L
M M
(i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪 1）；
N N
(ii) 「管有虛假文書」（控罪 2）；
O O
P P
(iii) 「非法入境」（控罪 3）；及
Q Q
(iv) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪 4）。
R R
S (5) 就上述控罪，申請人被判處共 36 個月監禁： S
T T
(i) 控罪 1: 12 個月監禁；
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C (ii) 控罪 2: 8 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 12 個月監 C
禁），與控罪 1 同期執行；
D D
E (iii) 控罪 3: 16 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 24 個月 E
F
監禁），其中 12 個月與控罪 1 及 2 分期執行； F
G G
(iv) 控罪 4: 20 個月監禁（量刑基準為 30 個月監
H 禁），其中 12 個月與控罪 1 至 3 分期執行。 H
I I
(6) 申請人不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請，
J J
K Nguyen Thi Phu (CACC 221/2011) K
L L
(7) 2011 年 3 月 19 日，申請人於深水埗被警方截停。
M 她向警方承認於 2011 年 3 月 17 日非法入境，希望 M
N
找工作。2010 年 1 月 23 日，申請人曾因非法入境 N
及使用偽造身份證而被定罪。2010 年 8 月 11 日發
O O
出遞解離境令。申請人於 2010 年 9 月 21 日刑滿出
P 獄。 P
Q Q
(8) 申請人承認 3 項控罪：
R R
S (i) 「管有偽造身份證」（控罪 1）； S
T T
(ii) 「非法入境」（控罪 2）；及
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
C (iii) 「違反遞解離境令」（控罪 3） C
D D
(9) 她分別被判處 15 個月監禁（控罪 1）、15 個月監禁
E 與控罪 1 同期執行和 18 個月監禁（即量刑基準為 E
F
27 個月監禁），其中 12 個月與首兩項控罪分期執 F
行，即總刑期為 27 個月監禁。
G G
H (10) 她不服判刑，提出上訴許可申請。 H
I I
Guan Cuizhen (HCMA 360/2011)
J J
K
(11) 2011 年 4 月 12 日，警方截停上訴人，要求她出示 K
身份證。上訴人出示一張偽造身份證，並承認她於
L L
2011 年 1 月 18 日非法入境。上訴人承認來港希望
M M
賺取金錢，但聲稱她從沒使用涉案的偽造身份證。
N 上訴人曾於 2008 年 7 月就一項違反逗留條件被判 N
處緩刑；2009 年 5 月，就行使偽造旅行證件、作出
O O
虛假聲明及違反緩刑被判處共 13 個月監禁。
P P
Q (12) 於該案中，她承認一項「管有偽造身份證」及一項 Q
「非法入境」，被判處共 21 個月監禁，即 12 個月
R R
監禁及 15 個月監禁（其中 6 個月同期執行）。她不
S S
服判刑，提出上訴。
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
9. 就「管有偽造身份證」或「管有他人身份證」，上訴法庭
C 指： C
D D
“2. Possession of forged identity card or an identity card
belonging to another person
E E
(a) Although So Man-king did not specifically address the
F sentence for possession of identity card which is forged or F
belonging to another, it is clear from the discussion that
possession of the identity card carries the same criminality as the
G other three offences. As can been seen from the decision of this G
Court in HKSAR v. Wong Ping (CACC 86/2005), which will be
discussed later, Chan and Tam had been relied upon by the
H H
Courts as the basis for ordering a 15-month sentence for
possession of a forged identity card which could be enhanced if
I the offender made use of the card to obtain some particular I
benefit.
J J
(b) In HKSAR and Li Chang Li [2004–2005] HKCLRT 193,
this Court dealing with the case of someone coming legally to
K Hong Kong and charged with possession of an identity card held K
that in the absence of exceptional circumstances a sentence of
12 months’ imprisonment should be imposed. If the offender
L has actually produced or used a forged identity card or identity L
card belonging to another in order to conceal his identity, work
M
illegally or unlawfully further his stay in Hong Kong, then the M
starting point upon a plea of guilty should be 15 months’
imprisonment.
N N
3. Concurrent or consecutive sentence
(1) R v Chan Wun Sang adopted a concurrent sentence for using
O O
a forged identity card and unlawfully remaining.
(2) In HKSAR v Wong Ping, this Court was concerned with an
P appellant who pleaded guilty to four offences and was sentenced P
to a total of 65 months’ imprisonment, namely:
Q (a) First charge (robbery): 40 months. Q
(b) Second charge (using an identity card relating to another
R person): 6 months. R
(c) Third charge (possession of offensive weapon): 4 months.
(d) Fourth charge (unlawfully remaining): 15 months.
S S
The sentences were to be served consecutively.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B (3) The offences were discovered when the appellant was B
arrested after he produced an identity card belonging to another
C as proof of his identity. C
(4) This Court reduced the total sentence by six months. This
D was achieved by ordering the 6-month sentence on possession D
of identity card to run concurrently with the 15-month sentence
E
on unlawfully remaining. This Court agreed that except where E
there are special circumstances the sentences for these two
offences would normally be concurrent…
F F
Our view
G G
17. It is clear that a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for
possession of a forged identity card by an illegal immigrant is
H consistent with the long-established authorities. Further as H
apparent from Chan Wun Sang and Wong Ping this Court has
consistently imposed a concurrent sentence for forged identity
I card offence and unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong in the I
absence of exceptional circumstances. The rationale, as stated
J in So Man-king, is that the substantial element in sentencing for J
the offences is the unlawful presence in Hong Kong. The mere
production of the identity card when an illegal immigrant was
K intercepted was not regarded as a special feature which justifies K
a departure from the concurrent sentence approach. This line of
authorities is binding on this Court and on the Court of First
L L
Instance.
M 18. In 香港特別行政區 訴 陳堂 (unrep., HCMA 944/2009), the M
appellant pleaded guilty to possession of false identity card and
unlawfully remaining. A 15-month sentence was imposed for
N N
each offence and five months of the second sentence was to be
served consecutively to the first, making a total of 20 months’
O imprisonment. Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan allowed O
the appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months’
imprisonment. He ordered the first sentence to be altered to 12
P months and three months of which was to be served P
consecutively to the second sentence of 18 months. The Judge
Q distinguished Wong Ping and purported to apply Li Chang Li. Q
19. The Deputy Judge was of the view that this Court in Li
R Chang Li provided a guideline for a 12-month sentence and it R
explicitly stated that to remain in Hong Kong unlawfully is an
offence in itself for which the offender should receive an
S S
appropriate sentence. He further observed that when a person
came to Hong Kong lawfully and in possession of a forged
T identity card, he commits an offence. If his sentence is the same T
as another person who came to Hong Kong unlawfully and in
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B possession of a forged identity card, the former may find the B
sentence unjust.
C C
20. With respect to Judge Chan his approach was wrong and
should not be followed. Li Chang Li is not concerned with the
D tariff of sentence for an illegal immigrant in possession of a D
forged identity card or with the concurrent/consecutive method
E
of sentencing. The discussion in that case was confined to the E
disparity in sentences imposed in the lower courts of someone
who came to Hong Kong legally and in possession of a forged
F identity card or an identity card belonging to another person for F
the purpose of using the card to seek employment in Hong Kong.
G G
22. HKSAR v Li Chang Li did not overrule any previous
decisions that had adopted a sentence of 15 months’
H imprisonment on an illegal immigrant in possession of a forged H
identity card. In our view the two lines of authorities should
remain distinct. The underlining criminality of an illegal
I immigrant in possession of a forged identity card is his unlawful I
presence in Hong Kong. This is the mischief that the deterrent
J sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment is aimed at. The forged J
identity card must primarily be for the purpose of ensuring his
illegal status in Hong Kong would not be so easily detected. If
K he makes use of the card for a benefit, such as seeking K
employment, then the 15-month sentence can be adjusted
upwards.
L L
23. The enhancement provides a degree of flexibility in arriving
M at the appropriate sentence even if the two sentences remain M
concurrent. Wong Ping did not state categorically that there
must be concurrent sentences. Whether in a case there should
N be consecutive sentences must be fact specific. By giving a N
proper adjustment to the standard sentences, we do not envisage
O in a normal situation that there is a real need to use a partially O
consecutive sentence approach. …”
P P
控罪 4
Q Q
R
10. 「違反逗留條件」最高的刑期為 2 年監禁及第 5 級罰款 R
（50,000 元），沒有量刑指引。
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
11. 於 HKSAR v Tiongson Patricia Manalad [2002] 1 HKLRD
C 681，申請人承認一項「入屋犯法」及一項「逾期居留」。申請人在 C
香港「逾期居留」2 年多。就該控罪，原審法官以 9 個作為量刑基準，
D D
扣減認罪折扣後，下調至 6 個月，與「入屋犯法」的 2 年刑期全部分
E E
期執行。申請人不服判刑，提出上訴。上訴法庭指：
F F
“11. It has been pointed out by the respondent that there is no
G tariff laid down for overstaying offences and that the range is G
wide from a fine (at level 5) to a term of imprisonment up to 2
years.
H H
12. It has also been pointed out to us that the taking up of
I employment during the period of the overstay is considered by I
these courts to be an aggravating factor.
J 13. We agree with those views. It is the length of the overstay J
that the court looks at and whether employment was taken up
K during the period of the overstay which is relevant to K
sentence. …
L 15. In three of the cases to which we were referred by both L
counsel, there were imposed sentences of 6 months for
overstaying. First of these cases is the case of Tseung Sau Tao,
M M
HCMA No.955 of 1992, unreported, where the appellant
overstayed for a period of 4 years and 6 months. The second case
N where a six-month sentence was imposed was the case of N
Bhattarai, HCMA No.606 of 1996, where the appellant had
overstayed for 11 months and had worked during the period of
O O
overstay. P. Chan J (as he then was) commented in that case that
6 months was not manifestly excessive and not wrong in
P principle in dismissing the appeal. However in Bhattarai's case, P
the learned judge there appears to have focused on the count of
possession of another's identity card rather than on the
Q overstaying count nor were any previously decisions cited to Q
support his comments. In the third case where a six-month
R sentence was imposed, that is the case Iqbal Zahid, HCMA R
560/1996, unreported, there Stock J (as he then was) reduced the
six-month sentence to 3 months on the grounds that the appellant
S in that case had surrendered himself. In the judgment he had S
commented that 6 months was on the high side but not excessive.
However, it is noted that in that case the appellant there had one
T T
previous conviction for overstaying. The period of the
overstaying in that case was a period of 3 years.
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
16. We were satisfied that in each of those three cases where 6
C month sentences were imposed for overstaying, there are C
distinguishing features from the present case.
D 17. In eight other cases which were cited or referred to this court D
by both counsel, the sentences for the overstaying ranged from
E
28 days to 3 months. E
18. In all the circumstances and after careful consideration of the
F length of sentences imposed from all the cases referred to us, we F
are of the view that there should be some consistency and the
proper starting point which should have been adopted here is one
G G
of 4½ months instead of the 9 months used by the learned judge
below. On that basis, and giving to the applicant the full one-
H third discount for the plea of guilty this would result in a H
sentence of 3 months for the overstaying count.”
I I
討論
J J
K 12. 因控罪 3 的判刑會影響到控罪 2 的判刑，本席先處理控 K
罪 3。
L L
M 控罪 3 M
N N
13. 大律師指，2008 年至 2019 年，被告人曾任職中港貨車司
O O
機。2019 年，他嘗試創業，經營蝦蟹養殖業務，但同年受疫情影響而
P 結業。此後，被告人曾轉職擔任建築工人及冷氣技工。入境香港前， P
Q
他萌生了在港求職的想法，並被一名求職中介人騙去人民幣 25,000 Q
元，來港後沒被安排工作。被告人現已知道他不可在香港合法工作，
R R
幸而沒有獲聘。
S S
T
14. 本席完全不接受被告人對管有偽造身份證的解釋。大律 T
師承認，被告人來港前已知道不能在港工作，因此才購買 2 張偽造身
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
份證。換言之，他並非被捕後才知悉不可在港合法工作。既然如此，
C 聘用求職中介人的說法完全不合理。況且，如被告人本只是想來港求 C
職，根本無須購買 2 張偽造身份證。
D D
E E
15. 大律師續指，警方並非於被告人身上檢獲涉案的 3 張偽
F 造身份證，沒有任何證供顯示被告人曾使用或向任何人展示該 3 張偽 F
造身份證。沒有爭議的是被告人逾期留港共 1 年 3 個月。他唯一留港
G G
的原因是求職，而求職時必須出示身份證。被告人的解釋完全不合理；
H H
他只是僥倖警方沒有找到證供證明他曾出示或使用涉案的身份證。
I I
16. 因控方無法證實被告人曾出示或使用涉案偽造身份證，
J J
根據 Li Chang Li 的指引，認罪後的刑期為 12 個月監禁（即量刑基準
K K
為 18 個月監禁）。
L L
17. 可是，Li Chang Li 案只涉及一張偽造身份證，而本案則涉
M M
及 3 張偽造身份證。大律師同意此乃加刑因素，但沒就適當的量刑基
N N
準作進一步陳詞。
O O
18. 於 HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching （倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238，
P P
上訴法庭指：
Q Q
“13. When a judge is faced with the task of sentencing for
R R
multiple offences he is required as an initial step to identify the
appropriate sentence for each offence and as the final step to
S achieve a total sentence appropriate to the culpability of the S
offender. The issue with which this appeal is concerned is the
decision that the judge faced whether to order any of the
T sentences for the offences to run concurrently with each other or T
to be served consecutively.
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
14. The question whether to order concurrent or consecutive
C sentences can arise in many different scenarios. An offender C
may be charged in respect of a number of different, or similar,
offences committed on wholly separate occasions over a period
D of time or with a number of different offences committed in the D
course of one episode of criminal activity. This case is
E
concerned with the latter situation. E
15. In the case of several offences committed in the course of a
F single episode, the prosecuting authorities might choose to F
proffer only one charge, where one charge embraces all the
criminal conduct reflected by the evidence or, as in the present
G G
instance, separate charges for each criminal act.
H 16. If it chooses the former course, the instances of proved H
conduct embraced by the single charge but which could have
been the subject of separate charges are taken into account in
I deciding what penalty reflects the true overall criminality.. I
J 17. But when the prosecuting authority elects the latter course, J
namely, to charge two or more offences arising from an episode
of criminal activity, the objective is still the same; that is to say,
K the ultimate overall sentence must still reflect the overall and K
true culpability, although the sentencing judge must take care,
first, to pass a sentence for each individual offence that is
L L
appropriate to that offence and the circumstances of its
commission and, second, not to punish the offender twice for the
M same conduct. M
18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender by
N ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct N
that the courts developed the "one transaction" rule. In essence,
O this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged O
arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct,
then concurrent sentences should be imposed.
P P
19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an inflexible
Q
rule of law. It was never intended as anything more than a Q
practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of the
power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final sentence
R was not one that was unfair to an offender. R
20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended to
S S
develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its
application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by "one
T course of criminal conduct" and exceptions to the rule T
developed… All of this, understandably enough, became
material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B offences of which their client had been convicted were part of B
one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct
C sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent. C
21. There are several problems associated with this line of
D reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working D
rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue
E
that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed E
on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the
real point which is not whether two or more offences are
F committed at about the same time, but whether the second or F
other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the
first. Thirdly, it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is
G G
arrived at after application of the rule is still subject to the
totality principle.
H H
22. The importance of the totality principle cannot be overstated.
It is there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense
I that he is not punished twice for the same offence and, further, I
that the sentence is not an unduly crushing punishment but it is
J also a tool by which to ensure that “the overall effect of the J
sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of
deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation.”: R v K M [2004]
K NSWCCA 65 at paragraph 55. K
23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the
L L
sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which
the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this
M court has consistently adopted in recent times, for example in M
HKSAR v Kwok Shui To [2006] 2 HKC 421… HKSAR v Iu Wai
Shun [2008] 1 HKC 79. It is likely to be a more effective
N approach in reflecting an offender’s overall culpability than one N
which becomes overly concerned with the one transaction rule,
O although in the case of more than one offence, the court must O
guard carefully against punishing twice for the same act. If the
second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested
P single episode adds to the culpability of the first offence, it will P
normally follow that the sentence for the second offence will run
Q
wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what Q
extent, if at all, will depend upon an assessment of the totality
appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing
R exercises, the approach is an art, sensitive to the individual R
circumstances of the case and the offender.”
S S
19. 本案中，控方原可選擇就每一張偽造身份證獨立提控（即
T T
3 項獨立的「管有偽造身份證」控罪），而每項控罪的量刑基準均為
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
18 個月監禁。之後，法庭須根據總刑期原則來考慮該 3 項控罪的判
C 刑。就算控方選擇以一項控罪涵括 3 張偽造身份證，判刑原則不變； C
判刑時法庭必須考慮整體案情及罪責。
D D
E E
20. 明顯地，被告人管有 3 張偽造身份證比只管有 1 張偽造
F 身份證嚴重得多。因此，考慮到本案案情，本席將量刑基準上調 9 個 F
月至 27 個月監禁。
G G
H H
控罪 2
I I
21. 大律師指被告人於案發時因失業而承受壓力才吸食毒
J J
品 。首先，眾所周知，經濟困難並非減刑因素。況且，被告人明知無
K 法合法在港工作仍選擇留港，失業或無業是咎由自取。被告人只管有 K
L 0.01 克「冰毒」。本席認為毒品流入其他人手中的風險不大。因此以 L
3 個月監禁作為量刑基準。
M M
N 22. 被告人因就控罪 3 被判處超過 9 個月監禁，法庭無須考 N
O 慮戒毒所報告。 O
P P
控罪 4
Q Q
23. 大律師指，被告人逾期逗留的時間相比同類案件並不算
R R
特別長。考慮逾期逗留的時間，本席以 3 個月作為量刑基準。
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
減刑
C C
認罪折扣
D D
E 24. 被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減，3 項控罪的刑期減 E
F
為： F
G G
(1) 控罪 2: 2 個月監禁
H H
(2) 控罪 3: 18 個月監禁
I I
J J
(3) 控罪 4: 2 個月監禁
K K
其他減刑陳述
L L
M 25. 大律師指被告人過往沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄，在國內一 M
N
直勤懇工作、盡心照顧家人。被捕後，被告人已即時作出招認，並盡 N
快於法庭正式認罪，節省法庭時間，充分反映其悔意。於還押期間（由
O O
2024 年 6 月 17 日至今），被告人亦作出深刻反省，深明自己犯下大
P 錯，尤其是管有偽造身份證及吸食毒品。他知悉法庭需判處即時監禁 P
Q 刑罰，惟望法庭考慮總量刑原則及盡量寬大處理，讓他可以早日返回 Q
內地與家人團聚。
R R
S 26. 被告人來港前已準備來港求職，根本沒有打算於獲批准 S
T 的七日內回鄉。明顯地，被告人逾期居留，除非是偷渡，根本無法回 T
鄉與家人團聚。被告人稱在港從沒找到工作，但仍一直逾期逗留，根
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
本沒有與家人團聚的意思；被定罪後，才用家人作為藉口。況且，判
C 刑對家人的影響並非求情因素。 C
D D
27. 於 HKSAR v NGO Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1，上訴法庭
E E
已訂明，認罪折扣已是「最高分水線」（High Watermark），涵括良
F 好記錄、悔意及所有其他求情因素，除非有極特殊的求情因素，法庭 F
不應再予以任何額外扣減。本案中，除了適時認罪之外，根本沒有其
G G
他減刑因素。
H H
I 總刑期 I
J J
28. 本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。控罪 3 和 4 均與被告人逾
K 期留港有關。本席下令該 2 項控罪的刑期同期執行（即共 18 個月監 K
L 禁）。控罪 2 則完全獨立，刑期理應分期執行；考慮到總刑期原則， L
本席下令，控罪 2 的其中一個月與控罪 3 和 4 分期執行，即總刑期為
M M
19 個月監禁。
N N
O O
P P
（ 謝沈智慧 ）
區域法院法官
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V