HKSAR v. WANG LIRONG

HCMA 122/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 3935/2003)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of using an identity card relating to another person and a second charge of breaching her conditions of stay.

2. The admitted facts were that a police officer went to the Ho Hoi Sum Restaurant in Yuen Long on 5 December 2003 and found the Appellant inside. The restaurant owner revealed to the police that the Appellant had approached her on 15 August 2003 for casual work. In order to obtain the work, the Appellant had produced to her a Hong Kong Identity Card. Police's enquiry revealed that the Appellant had come to Hong Kong on a 2-way permit as a visitor and was allowed to stay two weeks from 12 December 2002. By the time, the police found her, she had been already overstaying in Hong Kong for almost a year. The Appellant, as all 2-way permit holders visiting Hong Kong knew, she cannot take up employment while in Hong Kong.

3. The learned Magistrate in considering sentence took into account the Appellant had an identity card which did not belong to her to obtain her employment and therefore there was a link between the Appellant's status in Hong Kong as an overstayer and the identity card. The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of 10 months after reducing it from a starting point of 15 months. This is totally in line with the guidelines as laid down in HKSAR v Chan Man Mo [2001] 1 HKLRD 121.

4. The Appellant appeals against the sentence on the basis that she considered it excessive because, in her opinion, the normal sentence would be one of 12 months and that it is her first offence. I do not know under what circumstances she had gained the knowledge that 12 months was a normal sentence for this type of offence but I would tell her now that it is not. The court had said before that for this type of offence even for a first offender, the sentence should be one of 15 months and considering the fact that the Appellant had overstayed in Hong Kong for almost a year, the sentence in the second charge of 4 months is not excessive.

5. So, I see no grounds for interfering with the learned Magistrate sentence and so the appeal is dismissed.