HKSAR v. Zhu Jianjiao

[English Translation - 英譯本]

HCMA 610/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC3705 OF 2007)

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

Before: Hon Nguyen J in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 October 2007

Date of Judgment: 9 October 2007

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.At trial, the learned Magistrate heard the evidence given by all three prosecution witnesses, who were the three immigration officers, and the Appellant as to how the statement was taken.  Moreover, both the Appellant and the first defendant had given evidence on the facts of the case.  At the end, the learned Magistrate accepted the evidence given by the three prosecution witnesses but rejected the evidence of the Appellant and his witness.

2.The learned Magistrate said in his verdict that when the Appellant was interviewed by the immigration officers, he gave his answers voluntarily and what he said was true.  Therefore, based on the answers given by the Appellant in the record of interview, the learned Magistrate found that the Prosecution had successfully proved the three charges against the Appellant, and he was found guilty accordingly.

3.The finding was the finding of facts made by the learned Magistrate. An appellate court should not reverse it unless there are special reasons.  As the appellate court has not heard the evidence given by the witnesses, the Appellant and the first defendant, I should not reverse the finding of facts made by the learned Magistrate.

4.Therefore, I dismiss the Appellant’s appeal against conviction.

5.As to the appeal against sentence, the learned Magistrate imposed 18-month imprisonment for each charge, 6 months of the third charge to run consecutively with the terms of the first and the second charges.  In my judgment, the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on the Appellant was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.  Therefore, the Appellant’s appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Miss Winnie Lam, Government Counsel of Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

The Appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person