HKSAR v. Nguyen, Thi Hong

HCMA000701/2003

HCMA 701/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 3194 OF 2003)

_______________

________________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 September 2003

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2003

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant appeals against a total sentence of 26 months' imprisonment which relates to two charges, one of 'Using a Forged Identity Card' contrary to section 7A(1) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177 and the other 'Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong' contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.

2.The Appellant pleaded guilty to these charges. She was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment on each charge and 10 months' imprisonment on the 2nd Charge was ordered to run consecutively to the 1st Charge. One month's imprisonment, which had been suspended in KTCC 7069/2001, was activated in full and ordered to run consecutively. This made a total of 26 months' imprisonment.

3.The Appellant appeals on the general ground that the sentence was too severe. She put before the court her family circumstances. She has three daughters. She says that her husband is ill and unable to care properly for the children; one of the children had been injured in a motorbike accident and she came to Hong Kong to earn money to pay for medical treatment. On that basis, she asked the court to take a lenient view and reduce the sentences. These matters were put before the Magistrate by the counsel appearing for Madam Nguyen.

4.The Magistrate noted the mitigation and the previous offence of "Breach of Condition of Stay". He activated the sentence of one month which had been suspended for 2 years and ordered it to run consecutively, having ensured after checking the file KTCC 7069/2001 that the import of a suspended sentence had been explained to her on that occasion. It is quite clear that the Appellant knew she was not supposed to be in Hong Kong. She breached her condition of stay in October 2001 and she returned to Hong Kong on this occasion with full knowledge of what was likely to happen if she was caught.

5.The Appellant has not shown that these sentences are too severe. They are neither excessive nor wrong in principle and this appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Representation:

Ms Rosaline S Y Leung, SGC of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Appellant in person