HKSAR v. ZUO LIJUN

HCMA1059/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1059 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 5815 OF 2006)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, imposed upon him by Mr. Tong Man at Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court on the 12^th October 2006 following his plea of guilty to one charge of using a forged identity card, contrary to section 7(A)(i) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap.177.

2. He does not appeal against the concurrent sentences of 2 months’ imprisonment and 14 days’ imprisonment, imposed upon him on the same occasion on two charges of breaching the conditions of his stay.

3. The appellant entered Hong Kong on a two-way permit on 5^th December 2004 and was permitted to remain for 7 days.  One year and 9 months later on 26^th September this year, a police officer found him working in Wan On Street in Hong Kong.  A forged identity card was found on him which the appellant admitted that he had bought in Shenzhen.  He also admitted that he had used the identity card to obtain employment in Hong Kong. 

4. The learned magistrate relied upon the guidelines in HKSAR v. Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864 and sentenced the appellant to 15 months’ imprisonment. 

5. The appellant does not argue that the sentence was wrong in principle, but he asks the court to reduce the sentence, based upon his individual circumstances.  He also complains that he was not given a one-third discount after having pleaded guilty.

6. Insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned, essentially he says he comes from a poor family in Hubei Province.  His parents had to borrow $30,000 so he could come to Hong Kong and find work.  They live in very poor and hard circumstances.  His mother has suffered from mental illness for several years.  He cannot now remit money to them and does not dare tell his parents that he is in prison. 

7. Unfortunately, this sort of hardship is by no means unusual in those who come to Hong Kong on a visitor’s permit and then overstay and commit offences such as that committed by the appellant.  Save in the most exceptional circumstances, and this is not such a case, they cannot justify departure from the normal sentences handed down by the courts.  The magistrate was perfectly right in sentencing the defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment.  That accorded with the tariff laid down for this sort of offence in HKSAR v. Li Chang Li, HCMA935A/2004.

8. The court said this in that case,

“If the offender has actually produced or used a forged identity card or another person’s identity card in order to cover up his identity, work illegally or illegally extend the length of his stay in Hong Kong, then 15 months’ imprisonment should be the starting point upon a plea of guilty.”

It can be seen from the passage that I have read that the term of 15 months already takes into account the fact that the appellant has pleaded guilty.  No further discount is therefore warranted.

9. I dismiss the appellant’s appeal against sentence.