Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. FANG XIANG

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Justice

Fang Xiang

Appellant Counsel: Appellant in person

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Per Charge: months 12
  • Total Imprisonment Imposed: months 24
  • Starting Point Adopted by Magistrate: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (on Appeal From STCC 3624 of 2007) / Sentencing Appeal (appellate Jurisdiction, Court of First Instance)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    HKSAR v. Yim Lee Kuen (HCMA1187/2002); HKSAR v. Lin Peiluan (HCMA373/2003)

    Adopted starting point of 18 months imprisonment for these offences

  2. 02

    Magistrate's sentencing practice as applied and accepted by appellate court

    Guilty plea justifies a discount (one‑third in this case)

  3. 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 8 August 2007

HKSAR v. FANG XIANG

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

HKSAR v. Yim Lee Kuen, HCMA1187/2002

Case cited

HKSAR v. Lin Peiluan, HCMA373/2003

Case cited

HKSAR v. Lui Weixiong, HCMA1115/2005

Case cited

Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) s.42(1)(a); s.42(2)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.