HKSAR v. SAPON IMELDA G

HCMA000948/2003

HCMA 948/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 948 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 14862/2003)

____________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	SAPON IMELDA G	Appellant

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 November 2003

Date of Judgment: 14 November 2003

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of Breach of condition of stay and she was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. She now appeals against that sentence.

2. The fact of the case was that on 28 July this year, the Appellant surrendered to the Immigration Department for having overstayed and it was revealed doing enquiry that she had come to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper in 1993 and was committed to remain as a visitor until 1995. So in up to July this year, she had therefore overstayed for a period of 8 years and 3 1/2 months.

3. It was the second mitigation on her behalf that during this time, she had tried to look for a job. She could not, so during this time, she had been supported by her friends.

4. In assessing sentence, the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration the case of HKSAR v Tagulao Marcelita A Mag. App. No. 528/2002 where the fact was very similar to the present one. In that case, it was also an ex domestic helper overstayed for 8 years and 3 months with a clear record and surrendered to the authority. On appeal, her sentence was reduced to 6 months and so in the like of that case, the learned Magistrate then also adopted a similar sentence for the Appellant and sentenced her to 6 months' imprisonment.

5. The Appellant represented herself on this appeal and her ground of appeal is that she asked to be released earlier so that she could take care of her son because she wanted to go home as soon as possible. The learned Magistrate in sentencing the Appellant had possibly taken into account the correct authority and therefore sentenced the Appellant to 6 months which I see is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The ground advanced by the Appellant is not a meritorious ground at all, she had stayed in Hong Kong for over 8 years and she was not worried about taking care of her son then.

6. Also even it was the case, it is not a valid ground of appeal. The Magistrate had done nothing wrong and he had very properly sentenced her to a proper sentence, so the appeal is therefore dismissed.

	(E Toh)
	Deputy High Court Judge

Representation:

Ms Winnie Lam, GC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Respondent

The Appellant, in person