R. v. WONG HO KAY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 232
(Criminal)

______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted by Deputy Judge Candy in the District Court on 10th March 1995 of five offences of aiding and abetting the making of a false representation to an immigration officer contrary to s.89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap. 221 and s.42(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115. On each count he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment concurrent.

The facts

2. On six occasions in October and November 1991, the applicant assisted domestic helpers from the Philippines to come to Hong Kong or remain in Hong Kong under false contracts of employment. For payment he supplied bogus employment contracts, false employers' identity cards, tax returns and supporting letters. These enabled those concerned to either to come to Hong Kong or remain here. When any limitation of stay expired, he would supply supporting letters for applications for extensions. The supply of false documents was done either directly by the applicant or through associates and the cost varied between about $4,000 to $8,000.

The trial

3. The case turned upon the credibility of the domestic helpers who gave evidence for the prosecution under immunity. The defendant also gave evidence but the Deputy Judge accepted the prosecution evidence, having given himself appropriate warnings about its nature.

The application against conviction

4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the witnesses were both lying and unreliable and that no identification parade had been held. However, it seems that there was no dispute as to his identity when he gave evidence and he declines to give supporting particulars to demonstrate in what way he alleges that the judge was wrong to accept the prosecution evidence. In these circumstances there is no basis upon which this Court can give leave to appeal against conviction and his application is refused.

The application against sentence

5. He contends that the sentences of 3 years concurrent on each count were manifestly excessive, pointing out that in some other similar cases lesser sentences have been passed.

6. In this case he involved others in the use of false documents and he received substantial sums of money. The offences strike at the root of the local system whereby domestic helpers are allowed into the Territory provided they have valid and approved contracts. In these circumstances the sentences were amply justified on the facts and were neither manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The application for leave to appeal against these sentences is refused.