|
CACC 295/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 295 OF 2013
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 581 of 2013)
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HKSAR |
Respondent |
|
and
|
| |
NGUYEN THI BICH THOA
also known as NGUYEN THI BICH THOA |
Applicant |
____________
| Before: Hon Macrae JA in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 7 November 2013 |
| Date of Judgment: 7 November 2013 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
________________
1. The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences, namely using a forged identity card, remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong, and breach of a deportation order. She was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, 24 months’ imprisonment and 28 months’ imprisonment respectively on the three charges, the sentences on the three charges being ordered to run concurrently with each other; thus make 28 months’ imprisonment in all.
2. In passing the sentences he did, the judge was particularly concerned with the applicant’s record of similar offending. There were four convictions for possession of forged or unlawfully obtained documents of identity (two of which were forged Hong Kong identity cards), five charges for unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong and five charges for breaching a deportation order.
3. In the circumstances of her previous criminal record, the judge was entitled to consider an enhancement of the base sentence for each type of offence. To have done otherwise would have been to fail to recognize the fact that the applicant has persistently broken the law in coming to and remaining illegally in Hong Kong and that previous sentences passed upon her have failed to deter her. In particular, on 2 May 2002 and 15 August 2005, the applicant was convicted of exactly the same three offences as the ones before me today. On the first set of offences, she received a total of 26 months’ imprisonment: on the second, 27 months’ imprisonment. Plainly she was not deterred by the modest increase in her sentences on those occasions; and on this occasion she has received 28 months.
4. The applicant may be considered to have been very fortunate in the sentence she received and her application is refused.
5. She has been duly advised of a right to renew this application to the Court of Appeal, and the consequences of so doing.
| |
(Andrew Macrae) |
| |
Justice of Appeal |
Mr Mickey Fung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
The applicant appeared in person
|