HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2005

HKSAR v. HE LIHUA

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
45113-EN-2005-04-28

HKSAR v. HE LIHUA

HTML content

HCMA251/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 251 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 672 OF 2005)

____________________

BETWEEN

HKSARRespondent
and
HE LIHUAAppellant

____________________

 

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court

Date of Hearing:  28 April 2005

Date of Judgment:  28 April 2005

 

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

 

1. This Appellant appeals a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment following her use of a forged identity card, in a situation where she was found to be working, and breach of a condition of stay.  She received sentences of 15 months and 2 months to run concurrently. 

2. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Lee Chang Lee [2004] HCMA935 has made it absolutely clear that a sentence of 15 months in these circumstances will be imposed in the absence of exceptional humanitarian grounds.  The Appellant cannot demonstrate any such exceptional grounds, though she does tell a moving story of hardship and pressure. 

3. In those circumstances, the appeals against sentence must be dismissed. 

4. These are the formal reasons I now announce.  I have already explained in simple language in terms I hope that the Appellant understood the history of the sentencing leading up to the case of Lee Chang Lee, and why she was so still able to meet people in prison who had been sentenced to less than her. 

 

 

(P Line)
Deputy High Court Judge

 

Representations:

Appellant, He Lihua, in person

Ms Lily Ho May-Yu, Senior Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent