HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHUI YIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 100 OF 1998

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant appeals against sentence in respect of offences dealt with in the Magistracy, one a charge of Using an Identity Card relating to another, and two charges of being in breach of condition of stay. The Magistrate sentenced her to 6 months on the first charge, 3 months on each of the other charges and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently.

2. The facts before the Magistrate showed that the Appellant entered Hong Kong on a two-way permit on 15th May 1997and was granted permission to stay until 11th June. It was a condition of her stay that she take up no employment. On 1st September the Appellant, who was already over-staying, applied for a job as a waitress using an identity card which, she told the police, she had found in Hong Kong. She continued working at the restaurant until 9th January 1988. On that date she had a dispute with a customer who assaulted her. I have today been shown a photograph which indicates injuries to this Appellant's face. The police were called and these offences were discovered.

3. The Magistrate was aware of those matters. The Appellant says in her reasons for the appeal against sentence, that before this happened her family had experienced financial difficulty and she had no choice but to commit the above offences. She said that she had been offered a place in Electronic University in China for undergraduate studies in July 1997 and that she wished to go home to start her studies.

4. Today she asked for further leniency saying that her parents were ill and that she wishes to go back to her home land to seek further medical attention for her injuries. The Magistrate imposed a particularly lenient sentence in this case. The usual sentence is 15 months imprisonment, but he decided for reasons of sympathy towards the Appellant, that he would impose a sentence of 6 months and make the sentence concurrent with the sentences for the breach of condition of stay. He said in his Reasons for Sentence that the only unusual feature of the case was that Appellant's parents live in Hong Kong and she had been unable to obtain permission to leave China to live in Hong Kong. He also commented that although she had been offered a place at a University to commence in July 1997, any forfeiting of that place was on her own head because she chose to over-stay in Hong Kong well past the date in July 1997, when she should have taken up her studies.

5. I have considered the matter of sentence further. I believe the Magistrate dealt with this case leniently. I do not consider any further leniency is deserved and the sentences are confirmed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.