HKSAR v. Nguyen Thi Men and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 52/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. Each appellant was convicted by a magistrate, on her own plea, of three offences: two contrary to the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177, namely, using a forged identity card contrary to s. 7A(1) and possession of a forged identity card contrary to s.7(A); and one of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully contrary to s. 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 .
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMA 52/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2011 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC 6356/2010) ____________
Before: Hon. Wright J Date of Hearing and Judgment: 8 March 2011 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ 1.Each appellant was convicted by a magistrate, on her own plea, of three offences: two contrary to the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177, namely, using a forged identity card contrary to s. 7A(1) and possession of a forged identity card contrary to s.7(A); and one of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully contrary to s. 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 . 2.Each appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 months on the first charge, 12 months on the second charge and 15 months on the third charge. The sentences on the first and second charges were ordered to run concurrently: seven months of the sentence on charge 3 was ordered to be served consecutively to those sentences, aggregating 22 months imprisonment. 3.Each appellant appeals the sentence and asks for a reduction of sentence on the basis that she wishes to return home. 4.Each had sneaked into Hong Kong from the mainland illegally in September 2010 and had purchased a Hong Kong identity card at a cost of $8,000.00. That identity card had been produced for the purpose of securing employment at the establishment where each had been apprehended. 5.The magistrate imposed well-established sentences, appropriate after a plea of guilty, for each of the offences. The order that he made to ensure an appropriate total sentence was proper. He found, correctly, that there were no mitigating features or strong humanitarian grounds personal to either appellant. 6.Each appeal is dismissed.
Ms Bianca Cheng, Senior Public Prosecutor, Department of Justice, for the Respondent. Each appellant in person. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case