Chang Chien Yuan v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 68/1988 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. On the 13th January of this year the appellant was convicted on his own plea of two offences, one of using an unlawfully obtained Filipino passport and the other of making a false representation to an Immigration Officer, both offences under section 42 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.
|
HCMA000068/1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 68 OF 1988 ________________ BETWEEN
________________ Coram: de Basto, J. Date of Hearing: 10th February, 1988. ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1. On the 13th January of this year the appellant was convicted on his own plea of two offences, one of using an unlawfully obtained Filipino passport and the other of making a false representation to an Immigration Officer, both offences under section 42 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. 2. The appellant was born and is domiciled in Taiwan. He wanted to come to Hong Kong on business and also to visit his wife's relations in China. In November he applied to, the Hong Kong Government for entry permits into Hong Kong but these were not issued by the Hong Kong Government until the 14th January, 1988. These permits are exhibited in an affirmation sworn by the appellant. 3. The appellant was unrepresented before the learned magistrate and the appellant in mitigation made no mention of this and other matters. No criticism is made of the learned magistrate. 4. Mr Corrigan very helpfully provided a table with details attached of sentences for similar offences committed between the 17th January, 1987 and 3rd February, 1988. These show wide discrepancies - on the 1st charge, 3 were fined, 5 received suspended sentences ranging from 6 to 12 months and 7 received immediate custodial sentences ranging from 6 to 12 months. 5. Mr Coghlan for the Crown has conceded that the fact that the appellant applied for entry permits in November which were only issued on the 14th January is unusual and a strong mitigating factor. 6. I allow the appeal, quash the sentence of 9 months and 3 months concurrent and substitute therefore a sentence of 6 months on the first charge plus a fine of $10,000 and 2 months on the second charge to run concurrently, both sentences of imprisonment to be suspended for a period of 2 years. The order for forfeiture remains. 7. I would like to emphasize this decision is based upon the unusual facts of this case.
Representation: Mr L.D.F. Coghlan, Senior Crown Counsel for Crown. Mr A. Corrigan, Q.C. and Mr Tom CHENG instructed by Messrs. Woo Kwan Lee & Lo for appellant. |