HKSAR v. Darsono Tiani

HCMA 1021/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1021 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 1910/2004)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 November 2004

Date of Judgment: 18 November 2004

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant had pleaded guilty to four charges in the Magistrate court: two charges of making a false representation to an immigration assistant; one charge of using a false travel document and one charge of furnishing false particulars to a immigration officer.  She was sentenced to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.  She now appeals against that sentence.

2.The fact in the case was that when the Immigration Department was investigating the Appellant’s identity, the Appellant admitted her true identity to the Immigration Department.  She also revealed that she had worked in Hong Kong using this true identity from 1999 to 2001 when she was repatriated to Indonesia.

3.Knowing that her adverse immigration record in Hong Kong would not allow her to come back to Hong Kong to look for a job.  She therefore used another identity to obtain an Indonesian passport which contained her false particulars.  She came to Hong Kong on 31 August 2002, using her false Indonesian passport and to work as a domestic helper but her employment was terminated by her employer and she was sent back to Indonesia.

4.This time, she paid another HK$8,000.00 to obtain another false Indonesian passport and she came to Hong Kong again in May 2003 with that second false passport.  In that same year, she also used her false identity to apply for a Hong Kong Identity Card and an Identity Card was issued to her. 

5.The learned Magistrate in considering sentence had properly referred to several cases where terms of imprisonment were given to Defendants who had used a false or forged travel document.  The learned Magistrate took into account the mitigation advanced on her behalf by the Duty Lawyer who informed the Magistrate about the financial circumstances of the Appellant. 

6.I will not refer to the various cases that the learned Magistrate had considered, this can be seen from his reasons for sentence at paragraph 8 and 9.  The learned Magistrate was sympathetic to the Appellant and took a lower starting point than was usual for a sentence of this kind.

7.Therefore, it is for this court to look at whether these sentences were manifestly excessive.  The Appellant again submitted to this court that it was her poor financial situation at home aggravated by the illness of her mother that had forced her to commit these offences because she wanted to come to Hong Kong to work.

8.The learned Magistrate had already fully taken that into account, I do not consider the sentences that he had imposed to be manifestly excessive in any way and so I dismiss the appeal.

Ms Winnie Lam, GC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person