THE QUEEN v. NG SUI HING @ WONG YING (D1)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

____________

JUDGMENT

____________

Silke, J.A. :

1. The Applicant was convicted before Judge Cameron on her own plea of the offence of possession of a forged identity card. She had been charged on the Charge Sheet with a number of other persons who were concerned in more serious offences. She was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. She seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. An Immigration Officer had gone to a factory at Ta Chuen Ping street and conducted a routine identity card check. The Applicant was found to hold a card in the name of HUNG Shuk-ying. The Applicant admitted she was an illegal immigrant. She came here in 1982 and she got this identity card, for which she made a payment of $8,000, in order to gain employment in Hong Kong. She was earning a sum of $1,800 a month in the employment which she held at the time of her arrest. She has a clear record in Hong Kong.

3. The period of imprisonment was in line with both a decision of another division of this Court in 1981⁽¹⁾ where Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. was dealing with consolidated appeals in relation to four persons and he upheld a sentence of 15 months as being appropriate to this offence. Magistrates were at that time imposing sentences in like terms. We appreciate that that was prior to the ending of the Touch Base Policy when there was a considerable flood of illegal immigrants coming to Hong Kong. In 1983 in The Queen v. CHAN Ming⁽²⁾ the Chief Justice, dealing with a Magisterial Appeal, followed the decision of the Court of Appeal and said that:

"..... the proper sentence for this offence is one of immediate imprisonment for about 15 months. ".

but with the qualification that, if there are strong mitigating considerations, then that period can be varied.

4. The Applicant has told us that she is suffering from an eye and a liver infection and has a family in China including an elderly mother. Her father died in 1980. We can understand the Applicant's desire to work in Hong Kong and for the purpose of so doing to have an identity card but it should be a legally acquired one not one purchased under the counter and forged. We cannot say that this sentence was in any way excessive and that being so that there are no grounds for us to interfere with it.

(1) Crim. App.934 of 1981

(2) Crim. App.353 of 1983

Representation:

Applicant in person.

A. Bruce, Esq. for Crown/Respondent.