HKSAR v. Huang Yan Zhen

HCMA000073/1999

HCMA73/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 73 OF 1999

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

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

Coram : Hon Woo J. in Court

Date of hearing : 5 March 1999

Date of judgment : 5 March 1999

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges before the Magistrate, namely, using a forged Hong Kong identity card and breach of a condition of stay. For the first charge, she was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and for the second charge, she was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, concurrent.

2. The Appellant had two previous convictions. In March 1996 she was sentenced to a total of 40 months for theft, using the identity card of another and unlawful remaining. In February 1998, the same Magistrate, who sentenced her in the present case, sentenced her to 19 months' imprisonment, suspended for three years, for unlawful remaining. The Magistrate accepted that the Appellant's use of the forged identity card in an attempt to open a bank account in Hong Kong was not to prolong her stay in Hong Kong. Having taken into account the use the Appellant made of the identity card and her plea of guilty, the Magistrate felt that a term of nine months' imprisonment was appropriate. For the overstaying for one day, the Magistrate gave the Appellant one month's imprisonment, to run concurrently with the nine months' imprisonment. The Magistrate also considered the totality of the sentences in activating the suspended sentence of 18 months, and he substituted a lesser term of nine months for the original 18 months, producing a total of 18 months for the present offences and the previous ones.

3. It has been well established in the courts in Hong Kong that for using a forged identity card, on a plea of guilty, 15 months' imprisonment should be used as a basic guideline: see R v So Man-king [1989] 1 HKLR 142.

4. Having considered all the matters that the Appellant had said, I have come to the view that the Magistrate, in passing sentence, had done nothing wrong in principle, nor do I find the totality of the sentences excessive. In fact, I feel that he was extremely lenient to the Appellant. The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr William Lam, SGC of DPP, for HKSAR

Appellant in person, present