YANG MIN v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 1 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1 OF 2000 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA NO. 555 OF 1999)

_____________________

_________________________

DETERMINATION

_________________________

Mr Justice Ching PJ:

1. This applicant was convicted of a charge under section 42(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, in that he made to an immigration officer acting in the course of his lawful duties under Part III of the Ordinance a representation which he knew to be false. The facts were that he was employed by the Tung Kong Mechanical Moulding Factory, for which purpose he was allowed to stay in Hong Kong until 24 February 1997. By his own admission, however, he left his work in August 1995. His evidence was that he secured leave without salary and returned to the mainland to see his father who was then unwell. He returned to Hong Kong and went to work with a different company, ASM. He applied to the Immigration Department for an extension of his stay here, when he produced a letter purporting to be from the Tung Kong company saying it wished to continue to employ him after his visa was to expire. He confirmed that he was working for that company but there was evidence from it in a subsequent letter that the employment had ended in August 1995. In a later interview, his complaints about which were rejected by the magistrate, he said that that was the position and that he had started to work for ASM in November 1995.

2. The applicant asks that we should certify a question of law as being one of great general or public importance. What he seems to be putting forward is that :-

(1) Since the letter was from Tung Kong it was that company and not he who had made any representation and

(2) That the meaning of 'representation' is to explain in detail and to expound the reasons.

There is no question of law which we can certify on these arguments. He also seeks leave to appeal on the ground of grave and substantial injustice. We do not see that that is arguable. He says that he has other evidence which he wishes to put forward, as to which we can only say that any relevant evidence should have been put forward at trial.

3. We refuse to certify any question of law and we refuse leave to appeal.