HKSAR v. SARANILLA Corazon C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 944 OF 1997

(On appeal from WSC 14957 of 1997)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of making a false representation to an Immigration Officer. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in respect of each of the charges to run concurrently. She now appeals against the sentence.

2. The facts of this case as agreed to by the appellant indicate that she came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper in 1989. She stopped working for a Mr YAU Pik-yeung since November of 1995 when the contract was terminated prematurely. She then seek assistance from the employment agent. She was given a supporting letter purportedly prepared by Mr YAU. She then used the letter to apply for an extension of stay on 17 January 1997 and claimed to be then under the employment of Mr YAU. Her application for an extension to stay was approved and she continued to take up part time job.

3. In July of 1997 she found another prospective employer and again she used a release letter purportedly signed by Mr YAU to apply for an extension of stay in order to take up her employment with the new employer. In that letter she claimed to have been released on 16 July 1997. In fact, records kept by the Immigration Department indicate that Mr YAU had left Hong Kong for more than one year and the case then came to light.

4. The learned magistrate was of the view that the use of bogus documents to deceive the Immigration Authority was common and that they were serious as they went to the roots of the system whereby foreign workers were permitted to work in Hong Kong.

5. The learned magistrate adopted a starting point of nine month's imprisonment and reduced it to six months to account for the appellant's pleading guilty to the charges. As far as the seriousness of the offences in question are concerned, I cannot disagree with the observation and the reasoning of the magistrate. But in this particular case we are not dealing with a situation whereby the false representation was made with the use of forged travelling documents. We are dealing with a situation whereby the appellant came to Hong Kong lawfully and because of the premature termination of the employment and in order to overcome the financial difficulties she faced, she chose to manufacture or make use of a forged release paper so as to enable her to continue staying in Hong Kong until she found an alternative employer.

6. The facts also indicate that it was soon after she had found this prospective employer that she commit the second offence when again she produced a forged release letter in order to enable her to continue to stay in Hong Kong, so that her employment with the prospective employer could be processed.

7. I am given to understand that when dealing with offences of making a false representation to Immigration Officers involving forged travelling documents and on a plea of guilty, a sentence of six months' imprisonment was considered to be appropriate. I am of the view that in similar offences not involving forged travelling documents but forged letters of support, perhaps a lenient view ought to be taken.

8. Having come to that conclusion, I am of the view that a shorter term of four months would be adequate for the offences in question. I therefore allow the appeal and reduce the original sentence of six months to one of four months for each of the two offences to run concurrently.