HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2007

HKSAR v. LIU Sumalee alias HONGCHAIKHAM Sumalee

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
57288-EN-2007-06-01

HKSAR v. LIU Sumalee alias HONGCHAIKHAM Sumalee

HTML content

HCMA 348/2007

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2007

______________

HKSAR
and
LIU Sumalee alias
HONGCHAIKHAM Sumalee

______________

Before: Hon Wright J in Court

Date of Hearing: 1 June 2007

Date of Judgment: 1 June 2007

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

 

1.     The appellant was convicted on 12 March 2007 by the magistrate on her own plea of guilty to a single offence of making a false representation to an immigration assistant.  She agreed a summary of facts which showed that on 20 March 1992 she presented a Thai passport bore to an immigration officer which for personal particulars, including the name, which did not relate to her although it displayed her photograph.

2.     She overstayed her permission to remain in Hong Kong.  She was intercepted and arrested by police in November 2006.  Enquiries revealed the offence of which she is now convicted.

3.     The magistrate took into account the fact that the offence had been committed in 1992 when sentences may have been lower than they are present.  The current appropriate starting point is one of 18 months imprisonment.  The magistrate took a starting point of half of that and then reduced it by one third for the plea of guilty resulting in a sentence of six months imprisonment.

4.     That was, in any terms, a light sentence about which the appellant can have no realistic complaint.  The appeal is dismissed.

(A R WRIGHT)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Ms Bianca Cheng, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR

Appellant in person