IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2005
(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 1722/2005)
Before : Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Court
Date of Hearing : 14 June 2005
Date of Judgment : 14 June 2005
J U D G M E N T
1. On 11 April this year, this appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months by Mr Peter Law at the KowloonCity Magistrates’ Court. She now appeals against that sentence on the basis that she says that it is much too long.
2. The facts are these: the police were called to a flat at Tsim Sha Tsui following a disturbance. At the flat they found the appellant,who comes from the Philippines, together with another Filipina and an Indian man. The police asked her for her Hong Kong identitycard which she did not produce, and she was therefore arrested and taken to the police station for further inquiries to be carriedout as to her circumstances. At the police station, the police found an identity card which had belonged to her sister who had beenemployed here but who had returned home to the Philippines in 2002. Under caution, the appellant admitted that she had come to HongKong on 19 July 2001 and had been employed as a domestic helper, but that she had then overstayed here since the expiry of her visain August 2003. Her own passport and identity card had been lost.
3. These facts disclosed two offences. First, breach of her condition of stay by overstaying for 20 months up to the date of her arrest,contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, for which she was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. And, secondly, possessing an identity card relating to another person,contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, for which she was sentenced to 12 months, to be served concurrently to the 4 weeks’ sentence. In August 1999, she had been sentencedto 4 months’ imprisonment for an offence of breach of condition of stay.
4. I should observe that the appellant had first come here in 1988 to work as a domestic helper. So she would have been well awareof the rules and regulations concerning her status.
5. As to these sentences, the one of 12 months is one that seeks to apply the guidelines recently stated by the Court of Appeal in thecase of Li Chang-li, HCMA 935/2004. This sentence is, in my judgment, absolutely correct. I am told by her that there is no appeal against the sentence of 4 weeks’imprisonment for overstaying which was, if anything, too generous.
6. This appeal has no merit and must stand dismissed.
Ms Lily Ho, SGC, of Department of Justice, for Respondent
Appellant, in person