HKSAR v. ZHU FANGXIN
The appeal was dismissed because the imprisonment terms were standard, correctly calculated (including one‑third plea discount and lawful overlap), and the appellant's family circumstances did not constitute a sufficiently exceptional reason to reduce the sentence without unfairness to others.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- HKSAR v. ZHU FANGXIN
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Government/Prosecution
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2007
- Case Number
- HCMA174/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Use of False Travel Document, Forgery, Illegal Entry, Sentence Overlap, Mitigation for Family Hardship
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Government/Prosecution
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence totalling 18 months should be reduced
- 2 Whether family hardship of appellant justifies exceptional mitigation
- 3 Whether overlapping sentences were correctly applied
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the imprisonment terms were standard, correctly calculated (including one‑third plea discount and lawful overlap), and the appellant's family circumstances did not constitute a sufficiently exceptional reason to reduce the sentence without unfairness to others.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences totalling 18 months imprisonment upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj 1g?b llant _______________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Date of Hearing: 15 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 15 March 2007 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. This is an appeal against sentences totalling 18 months imprisonment. 2. The Appellant had been refused permission to enter Hong Kong using his true identity on several occasions in the past. In early 2003 he obtained, from a middleman, a false Chinese two-way permit and he used this to enter Hong Kong in April 2003. That was the substance of Charge 1. 3. On 9th January this year he again used the false Chinese two-way permit. That gave rise to Charges 2 and 3, using it and making a false representation. He was caught and on his person was found a forged Hong Kong Identity Card along with a forged Mainland Occupational Qualification Certificate. 4. The sentences the Magistrate passed were, of course, in line with the standard sentencing practice, being sentences after a one-third discount for the plea of 12 months on each charge. The 2003 matter was a separate use of the false document and the 2007 matters therefore overlap the sentences to produce 18 months. 5. The Appellant appears before me today making no criticism of the sentences but merely asking that I help him because his father has hypertension and his wife has mental problems. I have no reason to doubt the Appellant when he says that. He appears a decent man and he tells me, very honestly, that the hypertension had started in 2005 and his wife has had mental problems since the 90s. 6. He knew what was at stake when he came here and broke the law. Whilst he asks very nicely for a reduction in his sentence, the fact is these are standard sentences and it would be unfair to other people if he were made an exception without there being a good reason for it. Accordingly, I am bound to dismiss the appeal. (P Line) Deputy High Court Judge Representations: Mr Michael Wong, Government Counsel, of the Department of J 1g?b C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V &`#$ JUDGE.DOT setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8