HKSAR v. NGUYEN THI BICH THOA ALSO KNOWN AS NGUYEN THI BICH THOA

CACC 295/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 295 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 581 of 2013)

____________

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent

and

NGUYEN THI BICH THOA
also known as NGUYEN THI BICH THOA
Applicant

____________

Before: Hon Macrae JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 November 2013
Date of Judgment: 7 November 2013

_______________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences, namely using a forged identity card, remaining in Hong Kong without the authorityof the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong, and breach of a deportation order. She was sentencedto 18 months’ imprisonment, 24 months’ imprisonment and 28 months’ imprisonment respectively on the three charges, the sentenceson the three charges being ordered to run concurrently with each other; thus make 28 months’ imprisonment in all.

2. In passing the sentences he did, the judge was particularly concerned with the applicant’s record of similar offending. Therewere four convictions for possession of forged or unlawfully obtained documents of identity (two of which were forged Hong Kong identitycards), five charges for unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong and five charges for breaching a deportation order.

3. In the circumstances of her previous criminal record, the judge was entitled to consider an enhancement of the base sentence foreach type of offence. To have done otherwise would have been to fail to recognize the fact that the applicant has persistently brokenthe law in coming to and remaining illegally in Hong Kong and that previous sentences passed upon her have failed to deter her. In particular, on 2 May 2002 and 15 August 2005, the applicant was convicted of exactly the same three offences as the ones beforeme today. On the first set of offences, she received a total of 26 months’ imprisonment: on the second, 27 months’ imprisonment. Plainly she was not deterred by the modest increase in her sentences on those occasions; and on this occasion she has received 28months.

4. The applicant may be considered to have been very fortunate in the sentence she received and her application is refused.

5. She has been duly advised of a right to renew this application to the Court of Appeal, and the consequences of so doing.

(Andrew Macrae)
Justice of Appeal

Mr Mickey Fung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

The applicant appeared in person