HKSAR v. WONG WING CHAI

HCMA 458/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 2297 OF 2001)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

1. On 14 April of this year, this appellant, who is not resident in Hong Kong but on the Mainland, pleaded guilty at North Kowloon Magistrates Court to an offence of possessing a forged travel document, namely a PRC passport.

2. That offence was committed on 11 April and he was sentenced to a term of 12 months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence saying that, in effect, it was too severe.

3. The facts admitted by the appellant before the learned magistrate are that on 11 April, he, with others who have abandoned their appeals against sentence, arrived at Hong Kong Airport from Vietnam with the intention of flying from here to Yugoslavia. Inspection of his passport showed it to be photo-substituted.

4. Under caution, the appellant revealed that he'd met a man on the Mainland who offered him a chance to find work in Yugoslavia, and who told him to sneak into Vietnam to obtain the passport; then to fly to Hong Kong where he would be given a boarding pass in the airport transit lounge. The appellant did all of those things but he was intercepted by the immigration officers when he arrived in Hong Kong.

5. In his reasons for sentence, the learned magistrate states that he adopted a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for this offence and reduced it to 12 months by reason of the appellant's plea of guilty. The appellant said in his initial notice of appeal that such sentence was excessive.

6. Before me this morning, the appellant has in effect said that he would wish his sentence to be reduced because of the financial difficulties of his family on the Mainland and because of his poor health, for which he's apparently receiving some treatment from the Correctional Service Department's doctors.

7. Among other things, the appellant has told me this morning that the agreement was that he was to pay US$10,000 to the middle man for the arrangements for him to be taken to Yugoslavia. And that US$1,000 of that sum was paid as a deposit.

8. The learned magistrate in his reasons for sentence refers to a number of authorities for the proposition that for this type of offence, 18 months' imprisonment is the appropriate starting point. I have read those authorities. And having listened to the appellant this morning, I conclude that the sentence imposed upon him is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

9. And that being so, his appeal must be dismissed.