THE QUEEN v. TZE WAI CHUN

HCMA001064/1988

IN THE COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 1988

___________

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN
	v.
	TZE WAI CHUN

_______________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnes in Court

Date of Hearing: 29th November, 1988

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 29th November, 1988

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of using an identity card relating to another person contrary to certain provisions of the Registration of Persons Regulations.

2. She is 22 years of age and on the admitted facts was here as an illegal immigrant. She used the identity card for the purposes of obtaining employment. She had a clear record and had not previously entered Hong Kong illegally. The learned magistrate sentenced her to imprisonment for eighteen months. She now appeals against that sentence.

3. The learned magistrate in his Reason for Sentence said this :-

"We now have the authority of CA408/88, etc and AR10/88 for guidance. Those cases tell us that the offenders pleading guilty to the offence should receive rather more than the fifteen months awarded for remaining in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration."

4. Both Counsel for the Appellant and respondent agree that the learned magistrate has misinterpreted the the two decisions to which he referred. I agree with them that on a proper reading of those two decisions, the guideline laid down for this offence is imprisonment for fifteen months where it is the only offence charged and there is no other aggravating factor.

5. As the learned magistrate imposed the sentence of eighteen months on the basis that that was sentence authorized by those decisions he erred in law in passing the sentence. I allow the appeal quasi the sentence and substitute therefor the sentence which the learned magistrate would have imposed had he correctly interpreted those decisions, namely a sentence of imprisonment of fifteen months.

Representation:

Mr. Wilson, C.C. for Crown.

Mr. Louis Tong (DLA) for Appellant.