HKSAR v. You Tianxiong

HCMA 472/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 4135/2006)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 21 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 21 June 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.On 24 April 2006 you pleaded guilty to using a false People’s Republic of China passport as well as making a false representation to an immigration assistant.

2.The magistrate considered such mitigation as was available to you.  In particular, it was suggested that you were “in transit” and thus entitled to a specific reduction in sentence.  The magistrate indicated to the your representative that he did not accept that submission.  That line was not pursued further.  Indeed, in a letter today you have confirmed the correctness of the Magistrate’s finding.  Of course that letter contradicts the letter you wrote earlier this month.

3.Notwithstanding his assessment of the situation, on the first charge the Magistrate imposed a sentence that would have been appropriate for someone who was in transit, namely a starting point of 18 months reduced by one third for the plea.  On the basis of his finding, a more appropriate starting point would have been one of 27 months resulting in a final sentence of 18 months on the first charge (HKSAR v Rakesh Kumar Sthapak [2005] 1 HKLRD 643). 

4.The sentence on the second charge is in accordance with current sentencing practice.

5.There is nothing in mitigation before me that was not considered by the Magistrate. You have benefited from the magistrate’s approach in this matter.  The appeal is dismissed and the sentence confirmed.

Ms Mary Sin, SADPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person