|
DCCC904/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.904 OF 2010
--------------------
|
HKSAR |
|
|
v. |
|
|
Pirisara TONGKLUN |
|
--------------------
|
Before :
|
Deputy District Judge A Yim
|
|
Date :
|
14 September 2010 at 12:04 pm
|
|
Present :
|
Ms Lisa GO, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr LITTLEWOOD Brian Lewis, of Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
|
|
Offence :
|
(1)Using a false instrument(使用虛假文書)
(2)Possessing a false instrument (持有虛假文書)
|
-------------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
-------------------------------
The defendant was charged for:
1. Using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200
2. Possessing a false instrument, contrary to section 75(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200
The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, she is convicted accordingly.
Facts
At around 8:55pm local time on 11 July 2010, the Defendant was on board an aircraft registered in Hong Kong. The defendant used a forged credit card (card 1) to purchase a few duty-free items costing a total of HK$3,870.
Upon arrival the Hong Kong International Airport, the defendant was intercepted and arrested by Police. Upon search she was found in possession of 1 more forged credit card, apart from card 1.
All the duty-free items were recovered.
The defendant was a Thai national who was, at the material time, in transfer from Shanghai to Bangkok; she did not intend to enter Hong Kong. The forged credit cards were given to her last year; obviously she possessed the forged credits cards before she boarded the flight at Shanghai. I consider the appropriate starting point to be one of 30 months for each charge.
Mitigation
The defendant aged 29 educated up to university level. She lives with her parents and younger sister in Thailand. She works as a sales earning equivalent to HK$5000 per months. She has a clear record in Hong Kong.
The defendant admitted she was greedy and foolish in committing the offences, but the seriousness of the offences was out of her anticipation.
The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for her plea. I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor called for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality consideration; I order the sentence of both charges to run concurrently.
Order
The defendant was charged for:
1. Sentenced to 20 months
2. Sentenced to 20 months, concurrent with charge 1; making a total of 20 months imprisonment.
|
A. Yim |
|
Deputy District Judge |
|