HKSAR v. WU SHEUNG ON

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 810 OF 1998

(On Appeal from SPC 4442 of 1998)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was charged with two offences. The 1st charge was that on 4th June, he landed in Hong Kong and remained in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration. On the 2nd charge, he was charged with making a false representation to the immigration officer. In that he represented that he was a John Huvor, born in Hawaii. He pleaded guilty and he had a clear record.

2. The learned magistrate applied the leading case of So Man King [1989] 1 HKLR 142, he found no aggravating factors and he very properly applied the 15 months guideline. In relation to the 2nd charge, the learned magistrate was of the view that such an offence would normally attract a term of imprisonment of about 6 months. He reduced it by 2 months and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with one another.

3. Today, the Appellant complained the sentence was too harsh. I have no additional observation to make in relation to the 1st charge and the reasons given for the sentence by the learned magistrate. However, in relation to the 2nd charge, the facts are very serious. If one excludes the initial interview that was conducted by the police, there were altogether eight interviews conducted by the immigration officers, and out of those eight occasions, in seven interviews, the Appellant persistently lied to the immigration officers. The lies were outrageous. He lied about his name, he lied about his place of birth. He said he was an American citizen. He said when he was 10 years old, he became an abandoned child and that he had worked in different cities such as Chicago, New York and Vancouver. After he arrived in Malaysia, he lost his United States of America passport and finally came to Hong Kong from Korea by boat.

4. Against these lies, I think he was in flagrant breach of the offence of false representation, that is to say S.42(1)(A) of the Immigration Ordinance. My view is 4 months is far too short. But as the Appellant now appears before me without legal representative, to increase the sentence would appear to be unduly harsh.

5. Therefore, I am not making any order as far as increase of the sentence in charge 2 is concerned. The overall sentence of 15 months is, in my view, not a day too long. The appeal must be dismissed.