HKSAR v. Wong Kong
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 587/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 August 2000.
1. This is an appeal against a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant on 19 May of this year for an offence of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration contrary to section 38(1)(b), Cap. 115.
|
HCMA000587/2000 HCMA 587/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2000 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Jackson J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 11 August 2000 Date of Judgment: 11 August 2000 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1. This is an appeal against a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment imposed upon the Applicant on 19 May of this year for an offence of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration contrary to section 38(1)(b), Cap. 115. 2. The Applicant, who is aged 31, was found in an abandoned stone hut in Tuen Mun in the early hours of the morning on 18 May and he admitted entering Hong Kong illegally on the previous day, landing at Lok Ma Chau. He pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate and, in mitigation put forward on his behalf by the duty lawyer, it was stated that the Applicant has a 4-year old child on the Mainland and that he came to Hong Kong to earn money for medical treatment. 3. The Applicant has 2 previous similar convictions in 1994 and 1998 when he was sentenced to 15 months' and 18 months' imprisonment respectively. In 1994 he was also convicted of 2 offences of robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 4. Whilst the authorities make it plain that the usual sentence following a guilty plea for a single offence of lawful remaining is one of about 15 months' imprisonment, they make it equally plain that a higher sentence will be appropriate for repeated offences. 5. Before me, the Applicant has repeated what was said on his behalf before the Magistrate. He adds that while he did come to Hong Kong illegally he did not do anything else; and that another reason for his coming to Hong Kong was to get money to meet fines imposed upon him on the Mainland. 6. There is nothing in this appeal and it must be dismissed.
Representation: Mr Paul K Madigan, SGC, for DPP Applicant in person |