R. v. RAMOS MINVILUZ ALEGADO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 224
(Criminal)

-----------------------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The applicant pleaded guilty to three charges in the District Court and was sentenced by HH Judge Hawkes on 16 April 1996 to a total of 12 months' imprisonment. The charges were as follows:

(a) In January 1992, aiding and abetting one Emmanuel Reyes to falsely represent to an Immigration Officer that he was employed by her as a domestic helper.

(b) In March 1992, aiding and abetting one Roger Talaca to falsely represent to an Immigration Officer that he was employed by her as a domestic helper.

On these two charges she was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six months.

(c) Between July and December 1991, conspiring with a number of other persons to defraud the Hong Kong Government by dishonestly preparing false contracts of employment with the intention of inducing the Government to issue employment visas and extensions of stay to persons from the Philippines seeking to enter Hong Kong for employment.

In relation to the conspiracy charge the applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently, making a total of 12 months.

3. The judge called for a probation report prior to sentencing. It would appear that the applicant has had a difficult life since coming to Hong Kong from the Philippines in 1974, bringing up her family, and supplementing the family income by taking up employment of various kinds.

4. She appears from the probation report to have been a caring mother and a kind-hearted person who has allowed her flat in North Point to be used as a temporary shelter for her fellow-countrymen in need of assistance. These are, as the judge acknowledged, fairly strong mitigating factors. On the other hand the integrity of the government system for regulating the entry of migrant workers must be protected.

5. The judge concluded that his duty required him to impose an immediate custodial sentence. He was right in this regard. The term imposed is not manifestly excessive. The application is dismissed.