HKSAR v. CHEN YULAN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHEN YULAN
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 21 June 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Heard and Decided; Judgment Delivered
- Case number
- HCMA482/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 21 June 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Heard and Decided; Judgment Delivered
- Case number
- HCMA482/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The magistrate's sentencing approach was lawful and within proper authority: concurrent sentences were correctly imposed within each pair of charges, the totality principle was correctly applied between pairs producing an overall term of 21 months, and the appellant's asserted family circumstances did not justify further reduction; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences of 12 months imprisonment on each of six charges affirmed
- Within each pair of related charges the two 12 month sentences to run concurrently
- Second pair ordered to run 6 months consecutively to the first pair; third pair ordered to run 3 months consecutively to the first two pairs
- Overall term of imprisonment affirmed at 21 months
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Henry Hung, Government Counsel, Department of JusticeChen Yulan
Appellant Counsel: Appellant in personAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Per Charge (months): 12
- Consecutive Portion for Second Pair (months): 6
- Consecutive Portion for Third Pair (months): 3
- Overall Term of Imprisonment (months): 21
- Previous Sentence Served Before Repatriation (months): 15
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Heard and Decided; Judgment Delivered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentences imposed by the magistrate were excessive
- 02
Whether the magistrate correctly applied concurrency and the totality principle
- 03
Whether the appellant's family circumstances (father's stroke) warranted further reduction in sentence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant pleaded guilty and sought mitigation, relying principally on changed family circumstances including her father's stroke.
- Respondent
- The prosecution submitted that the sentences were proper and in accordance with authority, the offences were repeated, the magistrate correctly ordered concurrency within pairs and applied totality between pairs, and the family circumstances did not justify further reduction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 s.42(2)(b)
Offence of using a false travel document
- 02
Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 s.42(1)(a)
Offence of making a false representation to an immigration officer
- 03
Common law sentencing principles applied by appellate courts
Sentencing principle of concurrency and totality to achieve an overall just sentence
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate's sentencing approach was lawful and within proper authority: concurrent sentences were correctly imposed within each pair of charges, the totality principle was correctly applied between pairs producing an overall term of 21 months, and the appellant's asserted family circumstances did not justify further reduction; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The appellant had previously served 15 months imprisonment before repatriation as a result of earlier criminal proceedings.
- The false Chinese permits contained only the appellant's photograph and she repeatedly used them to gain entry despite prior conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences of 12 months imprisonment on each of six charges affirmed
- Within each pair of related charges the two 12 month sentences to run concurrently
- Second pair ordered to run 6 months consecutively to the first pair; third pair ordered to run 3 months consecutively to the first two pairs
- Overall term of imprisonment affirmed at 21 months
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 21 June 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 21 June 2007
bjbj HCMA 482/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2007 ____
HKSAR and CHEN Yulan ____ Before: Hon Wright J in Court Date of Hearing: 21 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 21 June 2007 ___
JUDGMENT ___ The appellant was convicted on 21 April 2007 by a magistrate on her own pleas of guilty to three offences of using a false travel document contrary to s. 42(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 and three consequential offences of making a false representation to an immigration assistant contrary to s. 42(1)(a) of the same Ordinance. After previous criminal proceedings in Hong Kong which resulted in her serving a sentence of 15 months imprisonment before repatriation to the Mainland, the appellant returned to Hong Kong on three separate occasions, 21 March 2003, 6 October 2003 and 21 May 2006. On each occasion in order to gain entry she presented a Chinese permit the contents of which did not relate to her save for the photograph. On each occasion she was permitted to enter. The offences came to light when she attempted to enter Hong Kong using her own identity. The magistrate sentenced her to a term of 12 months imprisonment on each of the six charges. Those sentences are proper and in accordance with authority. He ordered that the two sentences in each pair of charges be served concurrently with one another: that approach is apposite. He then considered the overall issue of totality and ordered six months imprisonment of the second pair of charges to be served consecutively to the first pair of charges and three months imprisonment of the third
pair of charges to be served consecutively to the first two pairs of charges. The effect is that the appellant is to serve a term of 21 months imprisonment overall. The appellant repeats today the mitigation she previously advanced. She says that, since then, her father has suffered a stroke. However, a letter from her children indicates that that occurred at Lunar New Year (February) 2007, before she attempted to come to Hong Kong. Be that as it may, that fact alone does not warrant a further reduction in sentence. In circumstances of this matter, the sentences and the orders are entirely appropriate. The appeal is dismissed. (A R WRIGHT) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Henry Hung, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR Appellant in person.
PAGE - A B 1udk 1udk i$&8 EnS< [<e? EnS< [<e? HCMA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.