Hon Yeung VP (giving the judgment of the Court):
高等法院上訴法庭副庭長楊振權頒發上訴法庭判案書：

Introduction
引言

The applicant Ma Ming pleaded guilty before Deputy District Judge Joseph To (“the trial judge”) to one count of conspiracy to aid, abet, counsel and procure the transfer to another travel documents (the 1st charge) and one count of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the transfer to another a travel document (“the 5th charge”).  He was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of three years.  The trial judge took four and a half years and two years as the respective starting points of the two charges, and then reduced them by one third to three years and 16 months respectively on account of the applicant’s pleas of guilty.  The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, making a total sentence of three years.
申請人（馬明）在區域法院暫委法官杜浩成（原審法官）席前承認一項串謀協助、教唆、慫使及促致向另一人轉讓旅行證件罪（第一項）及一項協助、教唆、慫使及促致向另一人轉讓旅行證件罪（第五項）後，被判入獄共3年。原審法官分別以4年半及2年作為該兩項控罪的量刑基準，並因申請人認罪而將刑期扣減三分一至3年及16個月。原審法官下令兩項控罪同期執行而達致最終的3年總刑期。

The applicant felt aggrieved at the sentence of the first charge, the conspiracy charge and, with Mr. David Ma of counsel acting for him, applied for leave to appeal against the sentence.
申請人不服第一項串謀控罪的判刑，現由馬維騉大律師代表提出申請，要求獲准就判刑上訴。

Prosecution case
控方案情

On 30 April 2011, someone placed an advertisement on the Oriental Daily News, offering to buy passports and left a contact telephone number.  Subsequently, an undercover officer made a call at that telephone number and told the person on the other side of the phone (Mr. Wong) that he wanted to sell his HKSAR passport.  Mr. Wong arranged with the undercover officer to meet [each other] at 6 p.m. on the same day in a male toilet at the Sheung Shui station of the MTR.  The undercover officer met the applicant at the appointed location and handed a HKSAR passport to him, who paid $1,000 to the undercover officer as the price for buying the passport.  Upon the completion of the transaction, the applicant left the toilet and at that moment he was arrested by law enforcing officers, who were waiting outside the toilet.  Apart from the HKSAR passport, which was the subject-matter of the transaction, the officers found in the applicant’s backpack another passport, the holder of which was Tang X X.  The younger brother of Tang X X admitted that he sold Tang’s passport to the applicant for $600 without his elder sister’s consent.
2011年4月30日，有人在東方日報刊登廣告，徵求他人出售護照，並留下聯絡電話。其後有卧底人員打該電話並向對方（王先生）表示希望出售其香港特區護照。王先生約了卧底人員在同日下午約6時在港鐵上水站的男廁內見面。卧底人員在應約地點見到申請人，並將一本香港特區護照交了給申請人，而申請人則支付了1,000元給卧底人員作為購入該護照的代價。交易完成後，申請人離開廁所時，遭在廁所外等候的執法人員拘捕。除了上述交易涉及的香港特區護照外，執法人員在申請人的背囊搜出另一本持有人為鄧XX的護照。鄧XX的弟弟承認在未得其姐姐同意下，將其護照以600元出售給申請人。

Having been arrested, the applicant admitted to the police officers that he, at the bidding of Ah Kun, placed [an] advertisement on [a] newspaper, offering to buy passports at the price of $700 to $1,000 each.  He said he could earn a reward of RMB 200 for each passport.  He said that within two to three months he acquired ten odd passports, which he gave to Ah Kun, who then took them to the Mainland for sale.  This confession formed the factual basis of the 1st charge, the conspiracy charge, against the applicant.
申請人被捕後向警員承認受“阿坤”指使登報以每本700至1,000元徵收護照，而他則可獲每本200元人民幣的報酬。申請人聲稱在兩個多月內，成功收集了10多本護照，並將護照交了給“阿坤”，而“阿坤”則將護照帶入內地轉售。上述招認構成了針對申請人的第一項串謀控罪的基本事實。

The applicant was 42 years old.  He had two previous convictions, which were about offences of a nature different from that of this case, but both involved dishonesty.  He had been sentenced to imprisonment of the terms of six months’ and eight months.
申請人42歲，有兩項定罪記錄，和本案性質不同，但都涉及不誠實行為。申請人曾遭判監6個月和8個月。

The applicant had divorced and remarried.  He has two step children, who are six and seven years old respectively.
申請人離婚後再婚，有一對六、七歲的繼子女。

He emphasized that he was not the mastermind and that it was for financial reasons that he committed the offences.  He said he pleaded guilty on his own initiative and was remorseful, and he asked for leniency.
申請人強調自己並非主謀而是因為經濟理由而犯案，他表示自己主動認罪亦對事件有悔意，故望輕判。

Sentences passed by the trial judge
原審法官的裁決

The trial judge considered that arrangements between Hong Kong and other countries concerning visa-free entry for tourism were constantly increasing, that Hong Kong had the duty to ensure that HKSAR passports would not fall into the hands of criminals, and that therefore the sentences passed by the court should have a deterrent effect.
原審法官認為近年香港和各地免簽證旅遊安排不斷增加，香港有責任確保香港特區護照不會落在犯罪份子手中，故法庭應判處具阻嚇性判刑。

The trial judge placed emphasis on the fact that the applicant conspired with another person to abet and procure over just a short period of time from ten odd people the transfer of passports to the applicant, and that the passports were then taken to the Mainland for sale to make a profit.  The element of cross-boundary crime in the present case made it a more serious one among this kind of cases.
原審法官強調申請人在短時間與另一人串謀教唆及促致10多人將護照轉讓給他，再交到內地轉售圖利，故案件具跨境犯罪因素，是同類案件中較嚴重的一宗。

The trial judge commented that the way in which the applicant perpetrated the crimes was not stupid, and that even if he was not the mastermind, he played an important role in this case.
原審法官亦認為申請人的犯案手法並不愚蠢，而即使他不是主腦，亦有在罪行中扮演主要角色。

The trial judge held that the appropriate starting points for the 1st and the 5th charges were respectively four and a half years and two years.  He reduced the terms by one third to three years and 16 months by reason of the applicant’s guilty pleas, and ordered that the two sentences be run concurrently, making a total sentence of three years.
原審法官認為第一和第五項控罪的適當量刑基準為4年半及2年。因申請人承認控罪，原審法官將刑期扣減三分一至3年及16個月。原審法官下令兩項控罪的判刑同期執行，而達至3年的總刑期。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

Mr. Ma pointed out that the Court of Appeal had not laid down any sentencing guideline for this or similar kind of cases, but he stressed that the usual starting point for the offence of transfer to another a travel document was 12 months’ imprisonment.
馬大律師指出上訴法庭並沒有就同類案件作出判刑指引，但強調“向他人轉讓旅行證件”罪一般的量刑基準是12個月監禁。

Mr. Ma agreed that the culpability of a person who tempted people with money to sell their passports ought to be higher than that of someone who just sold his passport, but he argued that the starting point should not be as high as four and a half years.
馬大律師同意以金錢利誘他人出售護照的罪責較出售護照者的罪責為重，但量刑基準不應高至4年半。

Mr. Ma submitted that in HKSAR v Cheung Wai Ming (CACC 32/2005) the defendant bought a HKSAR passport from a law enforcing officer who went undercover, and was charged with a single count of aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the transfer to another of a travel document.  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal said that while the starting point (equivalent to three years and three months) from which the sentence of 26 months was arrived at was not, in so far as a single passport was concerned, manifestly excessive, it might have been on the high side.
馬大律師強調在HKSAR v Cheung Wai Ming（張偉明）（CACC 32/2005）案，被告人亦是因向一名卧底執法人員以1,000元收購香港特區護照而被控告一項協助、教唆、慫使或促致向另一人轉讓旅行證件罪，結果他認罪後，被判入獄26個月。上訴法庭認為，以涉及單一護照而言，26個月的判刑（等同3年3個月）的量刑基準並非明顯過重，但可能屬較高的一端。

Mr. Ma averred that the applicant’s culpability was more or less on a par with that of the defendant in Cheung Wai Ming.  He further said that if the case had something to do with a syndicate engaged in buying and selling passports, the actual number of passports involved was not the most material consideration.
馬大律師力稱申請人的罪責和張偉明案的被告人的罪責相若。馬大律師更指如案件涉及一個買賣護照集團，涉案的實質護照數量並非是最重要的考慮因素。

Mr. Ma pressed the point that the applicant became charged with the 1st charge as a result of his cooperation with the police and his frank confession.  He submitted that for this reason the applicant was entitled to a further discount over and above the one third discount.
馬大律師強調申請人是因為和警方合作，坦白招認而導致被控第一項控罪，故他應獲得超過三分一的額外刑期扣減。

Discussion
討論

The further discount argued for by Mr. Ma was a discount in addition to the one third discount.  In his written submission Mr. Ma did not provide any authorities which could support his argument.  Later, at the behest of the court, a number of cases were submitted by the parties, which showed that there were occasions on which the court had exercised its discretion to give more than a one-third discount in the case of a defendant who voluntarily confessed and pleaded guilty to certain offences notwithstanding a lack of evidence from the prosecution to link the offences to him.  The authorities submitted by the parties included SJ v Tsui Kim-ming Simon CAAR 4/1997, HKSAR v Ng Wing Chung CACC 176/2005, HKSAR v Tsang Kai On CACC 79/2010 and HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong CACC 414/2007.  In these cases the defendants frankly disclosed the details of the commission of certain crimes and made a clean breast of their guilt.  Had they not done so, the prosecution had no evidence against them at all.  As a result, after they pleaded guilty they were given a discount of more than one third.  There was no hard and fast rule as to the extent to which the further discount should be made, but it was not more than several months.  In a case in which the starting point was more than ten years, the extent of the further discount was only six months.
馬大律師所指的額外刑期扣減是超過三分一的刑期扣減。馬大律師並沒有在其書面陳述列出支持其立場的案例。其後在法庭的督促下，雙方向法庭呈交數宗案例，顯示法庭曾行使酌情權，在控方沒有證據支持控罪，而被告人是自動招認及承認控罪時，法庭可以給予被告人超過三分一的刑期扣減。雙方呈交給法庭的案例包括SJ v Tsui Kim-ming Simon CAAR 4/1997、HKSAR v Ng Wing Chung CACC 176/2005、香港特別行政區訴曾繼安 CACC 79/2010和HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong CACC 414/2007等案。在上述案件，被告人都是向執法機構坦白道出犯罪詳情及作出招認，否則控方是完全沒有證據指控他們的。結果在被告人認罪後，法庭給予他們超過三分一的刑期扣減。法庭給予被告人的額外刑期扣減幅度並沒有規範，但不多過數個月而在一宗量刑基準超過10年的案件，額外扣減幅度亦只是6個月。

Where a suspect under arrest voluntarily discloses to a law enforcing authority the details of his commission of certain crimes, so that the authority obtains evidence of his guilt, that certainly is an element of leniency.  In R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 the Supreme Court of New South Wales called this element a significant added element of leniency.
一名被拘捕的嫌疑犯，自願向執法機構供認其犯罪詳情，令執法機構取得針對他的罪證，當然是減刑因素。在R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603，澳洲新南威爾斯最高法院將該項減刑因素形容為significant added element of leniency（額外顯著的從寬判刑因素）。

In paragraph 25 of the judgment of Hui Chi Tong the Court of Appeal said:
上訴法庭在Hui Chi Tong案的判案書第25段有以下詳論：

In Tsang Kai On, the Court of Appeal made similar comments in paragraph 14 of the judgment:
在曾繼安案，上訴法庭在判案書的第14段亦有以下的相類似詳論：

“That the applicant still voluntarily pleaded guilty notwithstanding a lack of sufficient evidence from the Prosecution showed that he was genuinely remorseful.  In these circumstances, the court should give a further discount to the applicant as an encouragement.  This is also in the public interest…”
“申請人在控方證據不足下仍然自願認罪，可見他是真誠懊悔。在此情況下，法庭應給予申請人額外扣減，以作鼓勵。此舉亦符合公眾利益…”

In the above cases the court did not indicate by how much more the sentence should be reduced when giving this further discount.  In Ellis, the Supreme Court of New South Wales remarked that “the degree of which will vary according to the degree of likelihood of that guilt being discovered by the law enforcement authorities, as well as guilt being established against the person concerned.”
在上述案件，法庭並沒有列明額外刑期扣減的幅度。在Ellis案，澳洲新南威爾斯最高法院認為“扣減幅度應根據如被告人沒有招認時，執法機構能破案及能成功將有關人等定罪的可能性而定”（the degree of which will vary according to the degree of likelihood of that guilty being discovered by the law enforcement authorities, as well as guilt being established against the person concerned.）。

However, from a practical point of view, it is surely no easy matter to decide in individual cases how much the further discount should be according to the above-mentioned criterion.
但從實際角度來考慮，在個別案件以上述理由來決定額外的扣減刑期幅度，絕非容易。

Since the mid 1990s the courts in Hong Kong have adopted the sentencing policy that if a defendant enters a timely plea of guilty, as a rule he is entitled to one third discount on the sentence he would otherwise receive.  In HKSAR v Chui Chi Wai & Another (No. 2) [2000] 1 HKLRD 704, the Court of Appeal had this to say on page 707 E-F:
自上世紀90年代中開始，香港法庭採納了一項判刑政策，就是如被告人“適時”認罪（timely plea），他一般會獲得三分之一的刑期扣減。在HKSAR v Chui Chi Wai & Another (No 2) [2000] 1 HKLRD 704案判案書第707頁E-F行，上訴法庭有以下說法：

The theoretical basis of the principle of giving a discount to a defendant on his sentence who timely pleads guilty was examined by the High Court of Australia in R v Cameron [2002] 187 ALR 65.  The significance of a plea of guilty was explained by Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ in their joint judgment as follows:
給予一名“適時”認罪的被告人刑期扣減的理論基礎在R v Cameron [2002] 187 ALR 65案獲澳洲最高法院審視。Gaudron, Gummow 和 Callinan法官在其聯合判案書中指出認罪的關鍵性如下：

“It is well established that the fact that an accused person has pleaded guilty is a matter properly to be taken into account in mitigation of his or her sentence.  In Siganto v R it was said:
“認罪作為減刑理由早已確立。Siganto v R案表明：

‘... a plea of guilty is ordinarily a matter to be taken into account in mitigation: first, because it is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender, and second, on the pragmatic ground that the community is spared the expense of a contested trial ...’
‘認罪一般而言是減刑理由，首先，它通常表示犯案者有悔意，除此之外，從實際角度而言，犯案者認罪導致社會無需浪費資源進行審訊…’

It should at once be noted that remorse is not necessarily the only subjective matter revealed by a plea of guilty.  The plea may also indicate acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.”
明顯地，悔意並非認罪所表示的唯一要點。認罪亦表示犯案者承認責任及願意和執行公義過程充份合作。”

Kirby J went further and clearly stated on page 81:
Kirby法官更在判案書第81頁表明：

“... The true foundation for the discount for a plea of guilty is not a reward for remorse or its anticipated consequences but acceptance that it is in the public interest to provide the discount.  Nevertheless, where genuine remorse is established to the satisfaction of the sentencing judge, it may be in the public interest to mitigate punishment further as a reinforcement for the prisoner’s resolve to avoid repetition of such conduct in the future and as an example to others.  However, ‘remorse’ is not, as such, a precondition for the provision of a discount for a plea of guilty.  There are other features of the public interest that need to be given weight.
“認罪所引發的刑期扣減之真確基礎並非作為悔意或其會導致的後果的獎賞，而是扣減是符合公眾利益的。當然，一名犯罪者真心悔過，給予他額外減刑亦符合公眾利益，以加強該名犯案者改過之決心，及作為他人之借鏡。但‘悔意’並非認罪而導致刑期扣減的先決條件，有其他公眾利益因素需給予比重。

The main features of the public interest, relevant to the discount for a plea of guilty … include the fact that a plea of guilty saves the community the cost and inconvenience of the trial of the prisoner which must otherwise be undertaken.  It also involves a saving in costs that must otherwise be expended upon the provision of judicial and court facilities; prosecutorial operations; the supply of legal aid to accused persons; witness fees; and the fees paid, and inconvenience caused, to any jurors summoned to perform jury service...
和認罪導致刑期扣減之公眾利益主要特點包括犯案者認罪（一）會令社會免卻審訊必會導致之不便和其他代價；（二）會減省司法程序，法庭設施，控方檢控程序，法律援助，證人費和陪審員費用的支出及免卻陪審員面對之不便。

… it is in the public interest to facilitate pleas of guilty by those who are guilty and to conserve the trial process substantially to cases where there is a real contest about guilt.  Doing this helps ease the congestion in the courts that delay the hearing of such trials as must be held.  It also encourages the clear-up rate for crime and so vindicates public confidence in the processes established to protect the community and uphold its laws.  A plea of guilty may also help the victims of crime to put their experience behind them; to receive vindication and support from their families and friends and possibly assistance from the community for injuries they have suffered.  Especially in cases of homicide and sexual offences, a plea of guilty may spare the victim or the victim’s family and friends the ordeal of having to give evidence.”
有罪人士承認控罪令審訊只需處理確有爭議的案件亦是符合公眾利益的。這樣會減低法庭因案件眾多而導致之延誤，亦會加快處理罪案，加強公眾對保障社會秩序的過程及執法之信心。罪犯認罪亦會加快受害人忘掉不快的經驗，令事件獲得澄清和令他們得到家庭、朋友或社會的幫助以減低他們所承受的傷痛。而在兇殺和性侵犯案件，犯案者認罪更會免卻受害人或其家家人、朋友因要作供而面對的折磨。”

If unfruitful contest, delay and unnecessary expense of resources can be avoided, so that the court’s time can be allocated to cases which warrant more of its attention, thus ensuring that judicial proceedings will proceed more expeditiously and more efficiently, then giving the defendant who timely pleads guilty a one third discount is a policy decision which serves the public interest.
避免無謂爭拗、延誤及浪費資源，令法庭能抽出時間處理一些更應當處理的案件，確保司法程序能更快捷及更有效地進行，給予一名“適時”認罪的被告人三分一的刑期扣減是符合公眾利益的政策決定。

A discount of one third is quite a substantial discount.  One of the main purposes of the court giving this one third discount to a defendant who pleads guilty is to encourage a guilty person to own up to the crimes he committed, so as to conserve the resources of the community and to ensure that justice can be administered more efficiently and matters can be concluded in the most expeditions manner.
三分一的刑期扣減是極可觀的減刑幅度。法庭給予認罪的被告人三分一的刑期扣減的主要目的之一是鼓勵有罪的人坦白認罪，以節省社會資源，確保執行公義能更有效及能盡快處理完畢。

Difficulties and disputes may arise in carrying out this policy of giving a one third discount and in deciding what a timely plea of guilty is.  Since there is a period of time between the moment when a suspect is put under arrest and the time when he appears in court to face the charge or charges, what happened during that period of time and the attitude taken by the suspect might influence the sentencing decision.  If the court has to take into account all these factors before passing sentence, not a few disputes may arise and the sentence that will be passed ultimately would become uncertain.  To give one example: Is a defendant who admits his guilt forthwith at the outset and cooperates with the prosecution entitled to a larger discount on his sentence when compared with a defendant who makes up his mind to plead guilty only when the trial begins?  Many people will think that the answer is yes and, on the face of it, it seems reasonable.  However, in order to put this kind of thinking into practice, the court may very likely have to go into fine distinctions and subtle differences between different cases and adjust the sentences according to such niceties and subtleties.  Such an approach would lengthen and complicate the court proceedings, increase costs, adversely affect court efficiency and delay the handling of cases which genuinely require the court’s attention.  It not only goes contrary to the policy and basic objective of giving a one third discount, but is also against public interest.
在執法三分一刑期扣減的政策及決定何謂“適時”認罪時，亦會面對困難及爭議。一名疑犯由被拘捕至出庭面對控罪會有一段時間，期間發生的事項及該名疑犯的取態對判刑都可能有影響。如法庭要將該些因素全部考慮在內，才作出判刑，會引起甚多爭議而最終的判刑亦可能變得不明確。例如一名一開始就承認控罪並和控方合作的被告人和另一名在開審時才決定認罪的被告人相比，是否應獲得更大的刑期扣減呢？很多人會認為答案是應該的，而表面上該想法亦是合理的。但要執行該類想法時，法庭極可能要考慮極為細微的因素，並根據該些細微因素而調整判刑。這樣的做法會延長司法程序及令司法程序複雜，增加費用和影響法庭的效率，對其他確要法庭處理的案件造成延誤，不但和三分一刑期扣減的政策和基本目的有抵觸，亦不符合公眾利益。

In view of this, when giving the one third discount the approach taken by the court is a firm and broad-brush approach.  It gives a defendant who timely pleads guilty the one third discount, which is substantial, without regard for niceties, in order to discourage excessive arguments and to prevent wasteful use of the resources of the community.
因此在執行三分一刑期扣減時，法庭會採納較為堅定及粗線條的處理方法，給予一名“適時”認罪的被告人可觀的三分一刑期扣減而不去理會一些細微的因素，避免過多爭拗，浪費社會資源。

In SJ v Lee Chun Ho Jeef [2009] 6 HKC 471, this court gave a clear exposition of this stance.  At A-C on page 44 [sic] 7 of the judgment the Court of Appeal pointed out that:
本庭在SJ v Lee Chun Ho Jeef [2009] 6 HKC 471案，就上述立場作出了明確的表述。在該判案書第447A-C段，上訴法庭指出：

The applicant cooperated with the police and after he was arrested he frankly confessed.  This led to his being charged with the 1st charge.  We are of the view that this factor should also be subsumed within the one third discount, and should not be treated as a reason for giving any discount more than one third. Otherwise, it would be in conflict with the policy and purpose of giving the one third discount.  Not only would it create uncertainly but also it would give rise to disputes, and so it is against public interest.
本庭認為申請人和警方合作，在被捕後坦白招認而導致被控第一項控罪這因素亦應歸納在三分一刑期扣減之內，而非導致超過三分一刑期扣減的因素，否則會和三分一刑期扣減的政策和目的有抵觸，不但構成不明確因素，更會導致爭拗，和公眾利益不符。

When dealing with individual cases and when considering the totality of the sentence, the court, in exercising its discretion, can take into account the fact that the frank confession of the defendant provides the only evidence which support the charge or charges and therefore make minor adjustments to the total sentence.  To this we do not object.  However, this factor does not support the argument that this kind of defendants must be given a further discount over and above the one third discount.  If the court does not give such defendants any discount in addition to the one third discount, that does not constitute an arguable ground of appeal.
本庭不反對在個別案件及在處理整體判刑時，法庭可以行使酌情權，因為被告人的坦白招認是唯一支持控罪的證據，而將整體判刑作出輕微調整。但該因素不支持法庭必需給予該類被告人超過三分一的額外刑期扣減的立場。在法庭沒有給予該類被告人超過三分一的額外刑期扣減時，該因素亦非可爭拗的上訴理由。

In giving the one third discount to the applicant upon his pleading guilty, the trial judge had already taken into account the applicant’s cooperation with the police, his voluntary confession and his guilty plea entered in court.  That he was denied a further discount in addition to the one third discount cannot constitute a reasonable complaint, nor can it be a ground of appeal against sentence.  This ground put forward by Mr. Ma is not substantiated.
原審法官因申請人承認控罪而給予他三分一的刑期扣減已包括了申請人和警方合作、自動招認及在法庭上承認控罪等因素。申請人不能以未能獲得超過三分一的額外刑期扣減而有合理投訴，更不能以此為上訴理由，要求減刑。馬大律師提出的這一點上訴理由不成立。

We agree with the trial judge’s view that the illegal selling of passports belonging to others is a serious crime.  The people who buy other people’s passports will certainly use such passports which they obtained by illegal means for doing something illegal, including serious crimes.  Therefore, a person who helps, in whatever manner, other people to unlawfully obtain passports belonging to others indirectly helps those people to commit crimes.
本庭同意原審法官的看法，非法販賣他人護照是一項嚴重罪行。購買他人護照的人必然是利用非法取得的護照來進行其他犯罪活動，包括嚴重罪行活動，因此以任何形式協助他人非法獲得別人的護照，亦是間接協助他人犯罪。

The trial judge correctly pointed out that in recent years tourism arrangements between Hong Kong and other countries concerning visa-free entry were constantly increasing.  The court has the duty to deter commission of crimes in this area, so as to safeguard the integrity and reliability of the HKSAR passport.
誠如原審法官指出，近年香港和世界各地免簽證的旅遊安排不斷增加，法庭有責任阻嚇有關罪行，確保香港特區護照的完整及可信賴性。

We do not agree with Mr. Ma’s argument that the number of passports involved is immaterial.  In paragraph 6 of the judgment of Cheung Wai Ming, the Court of Appeal specifically underscored the fact that the sentence in that case was passed on the basis that only one passport was involved.  The necessary implication must be that if more than one passport was involved, the sentence should have been heavier.
本庭不同意馬大律師的立場，指涉案護照的數目不重要，在上述張偉明案，上訴法庭在判案書第6段特別強調該案的判刑是建基在案件只涉及單單一本護照的事實上，其含意必然是如案件涉及多過一本護照時，則判刑必然應較重。

Ten odd passports were involved in this case.  If all these passports got into the hands of criminals, the community and the integrity and reliability of the HKSAR passport would have been adversely affected to a considerable extent.  As far as the 1st charge is concerned, the four and a half years starting point adopted by the trial judge was not lenient, but having considered the facts of the case and the modus operandi of the applicant, it was not manifestly excessive.
本案涉及10多本護照，如該批護照全數落入犯罪份子手上，對社會及香港特區護照的完整及可信賴性必會造成極大的負面影響。就第一項控罪，原審法官採納的四年半的量刑基準並非輕判，但以案件的背景及申請人的犯案手法而言，亦並非明顯過重。

Conclusion
結論

In our judgment, the total sentence of three years was appropriate and was not manifestly excessive.  We accordingly do not grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.
本庭亦認為最終的三年總判刑是合適的，而非明顯過重，因此本庭不批准申請人就判刑上訴。

Ms. Peggy Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.
答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官梁寶琦代表。

Mr. David Ma, instructed by Messrs. Sidney Lee & Co., assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant.
申請人：由法律援助署委派李志恆律師事務所轉聘大律師馬維騉代表。