HKSAR v. TRAN-THI THUY NGAN

HCMA826/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 826 OF 1998

(On appeal from SPC 4509 OF 1998)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted by Mr Ian Candy, Permanent Magistrate, on her own plea on 25 July of this year of an offence of possessing a false instrument and an offence of escaping from a detention centre. The false instrument was a Hong Kong Immigration Department recognisance form in the name of another woman onto which she had affixed her own photograph.

2. The appellant, who is a Vietnamese refugee, has been kept in a detention centre since her arrival here. She has twice committed an offence of possession of a forged Vietnamese refugee card and twice committed an offence of escaping from a detention centre.

3. Mr Candy, who dealt with this case, obviously thought that as these were her third offences of a similar nature, heavier punishments than that which had been passed on her in the past were justified. He therefore imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment for the offence involving the false Immigration Department document and three months' imprisonment for the escape from the detention centre. As each was a distinct offence he ordered that the appellant serve them consecutively. He was perfectly correct in principle in doing so.

4. Before me this morning, the appellant, who has been in Tai Lam Prison since her conviction on 25 July, told me that her husband, who returned to Vietnam some time ago, was recently involved in a fatal accident there and has died from his injuries. She tells me also that she has had discussions with the Immigration Department and the appropriate Vietnamese authorities about her own return to Vietnam. She begs me, as an act of compassion, to reduce her sentences so that she can return to Victoria Detention Centre where her application for repatriation can be properly processed.

5. In no way could Mr Candy's sentences said to be manifestly excessive or in any way contrary to principle. However, this is a case where I think I am justified in exercising some compassion. As the appellant has been in prison for effectively five months now and, to a large extent, has served her full sentences, I am allowing her appeal to the extent that, in substitution for Mr Candy's sentences, I sentence her to serve such term of imprisonment as will permit her release today, so that she can then be taken to Victoria Detention Centre where her repatriation application can be processed.