HKSAR v. Lin Chaojuan
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1022/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 December 2003.
1. This Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of Using a forged Identity Card, contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 and one count of Breach of Condition of Stay, contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115. She was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on the first charge and 2 months on the second charge; the sentences were ordered to be concurrent.
|
HCMA001022/2003 HCMA 1022/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM WSCC 1328/2003) ____________
___________ Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court Date of Hearing: 17 December 2003 Date of Judgment: 17 December 2003 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.This Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of Using a forged Identity Card, contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 and one count of Breach of Condition of Stay, contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115. She was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on the first charge and 2 months on the second charge; the sentences were ordered to be concurrent. 2.The facts were that the Appellant was seen walking into a restaurant and was asked for proof of identity. She told the police officer that she was a casual worker employed by the restaurant and produced her 2 way permit, which permitted her to stay in Hong Kong only as a visitor. The Appellant had produced a forged identity card to the restaurant proprietor to secure a job in the restaurant. She said she bought the forged identity card in Shenzhen in August 2003, for RMB5,000.00. 3.The Magistrate took into account in mitigation the Appellant's clear record and that she had 3 children and elderly parents-in-law to care for in the Mainland. She told the Magistrate she needed a regular medical treatment for an intestinal tumour. 4.At the appeal hearing she amplified those grounds by saying that her mother-in-law has asthma, her husband died in a traffic accident and the family does not have a house. She asked for a reduced sentence. 5.I can find nothing wrong with the Magistrate's approach to sentence in this case. It is not excessive nor is it wrong in principle. The Magistrate took into account the sentencing guidelines before passing sentence. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Representation: Mr P K Madigan, SGC, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Lin Chaojuan, Appellant, in person |