HKSAR v. LAU LEE PING

HCMA571/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.571 OF 1998

--------------

--------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. This is an all too familiar case. The Appellant, a 19 years old single Chinese girl, who entered Hong Kong illegally from China on 23rd May 1998. After entering Hong Kong, she was given a Chinese permit by a middleman. Apart from the photograph, all the other personal particulars recorded in that permit did not relate to the Appellant. In return for being given that permit, the Appellant was to work illegally in Hong Kong for the middleman who had arranged for that permit.

2. Four days after entering Hong Kong illegally, the Appellant was intercepted by police during a raid at a premises in Nathan Road and was found to be in possession of this forged permit which bears the name of Chan Ling. The Appellant was thereupon detained by the police. Subsequent examination of the permit revealed that it was a photo and pages substituted forgery with a forged Hong Kong Immigration stamp on page 7 of the permit. Enquiries further revealed the Appellant's real name to be Lau Lee Ping. Under caution, the Appellant admitted both offences and pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate to both these offences.

3. In sentencing, the learned Magistrate had considered everything that he should properly have considered, and after satisfying himself that there was no humanitarian grounds to reduce the sentence of 15 months laid down by the case of R. v. So Man King and Others [1989] 1 HKLR 142, the learned Magistrate imposed a 15 month sentence on the first charge of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully. In respect of the second offence of possession of a false travel document, the learned Magistrate took a starting point of nine months reducing it by 1/3rd as credit for the plea of guilty, and ordered that the two sentences to be served concurrently.

4. Having heard the Appellant this morning as to her pitiful family condition, I am of the view that there can be little question that these sentences are either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In effect, the Magistrate has passed the most lenient sentence that he possibly could in the case of this Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal against sentences is dismissed.