HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1996

R. v. CHIM WAI CHU

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
16702-EN-1996-10-01

R. v. CHIM WAI CHU

HTML content

HCMA000789/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 789 OF 1996

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

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
AND
CHIM WAI CHU

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

Coram: Stuart-Moore, J. in Court

Date of Hearing : 1 October 1996

Date of Judgment: 1 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This Appellant was convicted on 19 June 1996 of the possession of a forged identity card, and illegally remaining in Hong Kong having landed unlawfully. Police officers had spoken to her in Yuen Long, as a result of which she was asked for her identity card. This looked to the officers as if it was a forgery, and she admitted that she had bought the card in Shenzhen. She went on to tell the police that she had sneaked into Hong Kong by boat.

2. The Appellant is 54 and comes from China. She pleaded guilty before Mr. C.R. Mackintosh at the Tuen Mun Magistrates' Court. No particular mitigation was advanced to reduce the sentence which is normally passed. That sentence, almost invariably, is one of 15 months' imprisonment. Whilst I am very sad for you, I can say that there is nothing which was wrong with the way in which the learned Magistrate approached your case. You knew the risks you were taking when you came here, and the sentence is the same for everybody unless there are special humanitarian reasons to depart from it. It would be wrong for me to change the sentence and I am afraid it must stand. The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. P.G. Saw for Crown.

Appellant in person.

(M. Stuart Moore)
Judge of the High Court