HKSAR v. FANG XIANG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. FANG XIANG
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 August 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From STCC 3624 of 2007) / Sentencing Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Court of First Instance)
- Case number
- HCMA538/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 August 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From STCC 3624 of 2007) / Sentencing Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Court of First Instance)
- Case number
- HCMA538/2007
- 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 proper: using an 18 month starting point, applying a one‑third guilty plea discount, ordering concurrent sentences for paired offences and partially consecutive sentences for distinct offences; the appellant's family/humanitarian circumstances were not exceptional and did not justify further reduction, therefore the sentences are affirmed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentences affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences affirmed as imposed by the magistrate
- Total imprisonment to run to two years as previously ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Miss Ho May Yu, Lily, SGC, Department of JusticeFang Xiang
Appellant Counsel: Appellant in personAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Per Charge: months 12
- Total Imprisonment Imposed: months 24
- Starting Point Adopted by Magistrate: months 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From STCC 3624 of 2007) / Sentencing Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Court of First Instance)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentences imposed by the magistrate were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
- 02
Proper starting point for sentencing in false identity/false document immigration offences
- 03
Appropriate application of guilty plea discount
- 04
Whether family/humanitarian circumstances justified further reduction in sentence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant pleaded guilty but challenged severity of sentence; claimed family hardship including wife recently giving birth and being sole breadwinner; sought further reduction for humanitarian reasons.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted the magistrate correctly adopted an 18 month starting point in line with authority, gave the one‑third discount for guilty pleas, structured concurrent and partially consecutive sentences appropriately, and that the total two years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
HKSAR v. Yim Lee Kuen (HCMA1187/2002); HKSAR v. Lin Peiluan (HCMA373/2003)
Adopted starting point of 18 months imprisonment for these offences
- 02
Magistrate's sentencing practice as applied and accepted by appellate court
Guilty plea justifies a discount (one‑third in this case)
- 03
HKSAR v. Lui Weixiong (HCMA1115/2005)
Humanitarian/family hardships justify sentence reduction only in exceptional cases
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate's sentencing approach was proper: using an 18 month starting point, applying a one‑third guilty plea discount, ordering concurrent sentences for paired offences and partially consecutive sentences for distinct offences; the appellant's family/humanitarian circumstances were not exceptional and did not justify further reduction, therefore the sentences are affirmed.
Obiter and limits
- Family hardship is common among illegal immigrants and, absent exceptional circumstances, does not justify further reduction of sentence
- The mitigation advanced was repetitive of what was before the magistrate and not exceptional
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentences affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences affirmed as imposed by the magistrate
- Total imprisonment to run to two years as previously ordered
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 8 August 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· 8 August 2007
bjbj HCMA538/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.538 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC 3624 OF 2007) ---------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and FANG XIANG ( ellant pleaded guilty to four charges of making a false representation to an immigration officer, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance (Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6) and two charges of using a false travel document, contrary to section 42(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (Charges 3 and 5). He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each charge. Six months of the sentence on Charge 2, three months each of the sentences on Charges 3 and 4; Charges 5 and 6 were ordered to be served consecutively, making a total of two years imprisonment. He now appeals his sentence.
AUTONUMOUT When the appellant presented a Chinese Permit in the name of Fang Xiang on the day in question, record check revealed that on several previous occasions he had entered Hong Kong using a different identity. He admitted he assumed a friend s identity applied for a false passport, and entered Hong Kong on those previous occasions as he had been refused permission to land under his true identity, that is in May 2006 (Charge 1) and June 2006 (Charge 2) with two further attempts to enter Hong Kong in July 2006 when permission to land was refused (Charges 3 to 6). Grounds of appeal
AUTONUMOUT The appellant complained that the sentences were too severe. He said that his wife had given birth after he was jailed and he was the sole breadwinner of the family. Respondent s reply
AUTONUMOUT Respondent s counsel submitted that 18 months starting point adopted by the magistrate was in line with the authorities. The magistrate had also considered mitigation advanced. The present offences involved four separate entries or attempted entries, total of two years imprisonment on a plea cannot be said to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. My judgment
AUTONUMOUT In sentencing the appellant, the learned magistrate had considered the decisions in HKSAR v. Yim Lee Kuen, HCMA1187/2002 and HKSAR v. Lin Peiluan, HCMA373/2003. He correctly adopted starting points of 18 months imprisonment for all the charges and gave one third discount for the appellant s guilty pleas. He ordered concurrent sentences for each pairs of offences, i.e. Charges 3 and 4, Charges 5 and 6. For separate and distinct offences he ordered partially consecutive sentences. The approach is entirely proper.
AUTONUMOUT The mitigation advanced by the appellant today are mere repetition of those previously advanced before the magistrate, and these circumstances are quite common to a lot of appellants in this sort of cases. McMahon J in HKSAR v. Lui Weixiong, HCMA1115/2005 said this 7. The appellant instead relies upon humanitarian circumstances to seek a further reduction in his sentence. Those circumstances relate to his family. His mother is very old, his wife is ill, and his children are wholly dependant upon him. While he is in Hong Kong, they are without support in China.
8. Whilst one can sympathize with the circumstances of many illegal immigrants who arrive in Hong Kong from China, the law is quite clear. It is only in exceptional circumstances that humanitarian considerations can result in a reduction of sentence. The appellant s circumstances are not exceptional. The difficulties his family will face unfortunately are very common to the families of offenders imprisoned in Hong Kong. What is advanced by the appellant to me this morning and the letter of his wife in plea of mitigation does not constitute humanitarian considerations.
AUTONUMOUT I affirm the sentences and dismiss this appeal. (M. Poon) Deputy High Court Judge Miss Ho May Yu, Lily, SGC, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent The Appellant, in person
PAGE -
PAGE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ XoOe&t\ XoOe&t\ XoOe&t\ & 6" ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary 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.