HKSAR v. TAN BAOHUA

HCMA 718/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 718 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 5097/2007)

______________________

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent
and
TAN BAOHUA Appellant

______________________

Before : Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing : 19 September 2007

Date of Judgment : 19 September 2007

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1. The Appellant was charged with two charges of making a false representation to an immigration officer, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to a total of 18 months imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence.

2. The facts of the case show that, in relation to charge one, he had assumed the personal particulars of another person on his permitand those particulars did not relate to him except the photograph on the permit and he used that permit to visit Hong Kong in August2004. In May 2006, he did that again and on that occasion, he was refused entry. On those two occasions, he represented his namewas CHEN Jin-xiang.

3. Before the learned Magistrate, prior to sentencing, he was represented by a duty lawyer who mitigated on his behalf to the learnedMagistrate about the appellant’s background, and that the reason for his coming to Hong Kong was to obtain medicine for his sonwho had injured his leg.

4. It is clear that the Appellant had been to Hong Kong before this occasion using his true identity and had been in prison after havingbeen committed of a criminal offence and that is why he used another name to come into Hong Kong.

5. The learned Magistrate correctly considered previous cases of sentencing for similar offences. I totally agree with his assessmentand I do not need to repeat them here. The learned Magistrate had properly therefore sentenced the Appellant to 12 months on eachcharge, making 6 months of the 12 months on the second charge, consecutive to the 12 months in the first charge. I agree with counselfor the Respondent that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor excessive, and so there is no ground for an appeal againstthat sentence and the appeal is dismissed.

(E Toh)
Deputy High Court Judge

Ms Vivien Chan, Government Council, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person