R. v. SHAIKH ARIF ALI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.720 of 1996

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant came to Hong Kong on 23rd July 1995, and he was permitted to land on condition that his stay was limited until 4th August 1995. He breached that condition and stayed well beyond that date. That was the first offence. Then in November 1995, he was arrested on suspicion of overstaying and he then falsely represented to the immigration authorities that he was someone else, namely, his brother, who was in Hong Kong. The ruse was not then immediately uncovered and he was released on bail, but disappeared. So that was the second offence making a false representation to an Immigration Assistant. His audacity knew no bounds, for in January, he applied for an extension of stay but again falsely represented himself to be his brother. That was the third offence : again, making a false representation to an Immigration Officer.

2. For the overstaying offence the magistrate imposed a sentence of two months' imprisonment. For each of the misrepresentation offences, the appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for overstaying, making a total of eight months' imprisonment.

3. The appellant is aged 29 years. He has one previous conviction in 1994 for breach of a condition of stay. He pleaded guilty to each of the present charges.

4. The magistrate said that these offences are now becoming common and many cases come before the courts in this category each week. Even if that were not so, these offences are in my judgment serious. Those who comes to this territory and believe that they can play fast and loose with the immigration laws and deliberately lie to immigration officers in interviews and in support of applications cannot then expect any sympathy from these courts. Not one of these sentences is in the slightly objectionable, and in my judgment, the appellant could not have complained had the cumulative effect of the sentences been made longer.

5. For the purpose of this appeal, the appellant has addressed me about suggested dire family circumstances. I have listened to what he has had to say. If I were to exercise leniency for every tale of the kind that he has put forward which I have received in the course of these appeals from those who come outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, I would allow every appeal. If indeed, the family circumstances are as represented, which I very much doubt, the predicament in which the appellant's family finds itself, and in which he finds himself, lies squarely and fully at his door.

6. This appeal is dismissed.