HKSAR v. Qi Guoying
|
HCMA33/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC 8066 OF 2006) _______________ BETWEEN
_______________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Date of Hearing: 1 February 2007 Date of Judgment: 1 February 2007 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________
1.This is an appeal against convictions for four offences in relation to false travel documents. Charges 1 and 2 related to the use of a false travel document by the Appellant with the false representation that went with that, the matter of complaint being that her date of birth was inaccurately recorded to her knowledge. Charges 3 and 4 related to a false representation and the possession of a false travel document in relation to the Appellant’s daughter, the matter of complaint here being that it related both to the daughter’s date and place of birth, whether it was either in Hong Kong or in Guangzhou. 2.In relation to the first two charges there was a sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment. There were sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment in relation to Charges 3 and 4. The magistrate made 1 and 2 concurrent, 3 and 4 concurrent to each other but overlapped the sentences on Charges 1 and 2 by 2 months to create a total of 8 months’ imprisonment, a sentence that the Appellant has now served. 3.She pleaded guilty to the charges on 14 August. She then applied to the court and appeared before it on 2 November, seeking to reverse her pleas of guilty. The magistrate heard the application and dismissed it. He heard from the Appellant in evidence. In a nutshell, she claimed that her mind was blank when she met the duty lawyer representing her and, because she was frightened, she entered guilty pleas. The magistrate found that her application was wholly unmeritorious. He was satisfied that unequivocal pleas had been entered. He pointed to the fact that there had been some detailed mitigation given on the first occasion, the detail of which could only have emanated from her, and that the Appellant had acknowledged that she knew that these were serious offences at the time and that she would have not plead guilty if she had not committed such a serious offence. 4.In effect, today, the Appellant has re-launched that application to set aside the convictions in front of me. She has addressed me in some detail. The essential point was that she well knew her daughter was born in Hong Kong, but that she came to Hong Kong with a document that said the daughter was born on a different date in Guangdong. I asked her to explain that to me. The explanation she advanced was that in the Mainland the authorities would not acknowledge a Hong Kong birth certificate and that, on an earlier occasion, she had explained all this to the Hong Kong Immigration Service who had allowed the matter to proceed on the basis of the false date and place of birth. 5.I am aware that strange things happen in jurisdictions which I am not familiar with, but I simply do not believe that the bona fide authorities in Guangdong will demand that a false document be created as to where a child was born. When it comes to the Hong Kong part of the matter, I do not believe that the Immigration Department, in effect, gave the green light to the continuing of the deception as to the date and place of birth of the daughter. 6.It means that I am not prepared to act on what the Appellant tells me in this regard and I dismiss her application to appeal the convictions. 7.As regards the sentence she merely asserts that because she was not guilty of the crimes, she should not have had the sentence. The sentences were well within the usual reasonable range for crime of this sort and there is nothing that moves me to interfere. 8.Accordingly, the appeals against sentence are also dismissed.
Representations: Mr Vincent Wong, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant, Qi Guoying (戚国英), in person |