HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1988

THE QUEEN v. YU PING

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
25329-EN-1989-01-16

THE QUEEN v. YU PING

HTML content

HCMA001597/1988

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1597 OF 1988

_____________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent
AND
YU PingAppellant

_____________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 16 January 1989

Date of delivery of judgment: 16 January 1989

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.

2. Mr Tong, who appears for the appellant, does not dispute that this is the usual sentence for this offence. He submits, however, that the facts of the case do not indicate that the appellant was arrested with at least two other illegal immigrants. As it is not government policy to prosecute where the latter are arrested singly or in twos, Mr Tong asks me to deal with the appellant more leniently. In.R. v. Lee Yan-bi M.A. 1058/88, I ordered the immediate release, after some three months in custody, of two such offenders.

3. However, Counsel for the Crown, Mr Leung, while conceding that prosecutions in such circumstances do occasionally occur, says it remains policy not to prosecute and the court may assume, unless notified to the contrary, that any defendant charged with this offence was arrested in a group of three or more. Such was the situation, he maintains, in the case of this appellant.

4. Mr Tong's instructions being to the contrary, I order that the case be remitted to the magistrate, to be heard de novo, in order that the matter may be resolved.

5. If the appellant proves to be right, no doubt the magistrate will take what I said in Lee Yan-bi into account when passing sentence.

(E. de B. Bewley)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Paul Leung, Crown Counsel, for Respondent

Mr L. Tong, assigned by D.L.A., for Appellant