HKSAR v. ILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO
- Citation
- HKSAR v. ILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 October 2014
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence From Magistrates' Court; Judgment on Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA400/2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 October 2014
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence From Magistrates' Court; Judgment on Sentence
- Case number
- HCMA400/2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court found no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion, including the starting points, the application of concurrent and consecutive sentences, activation of the suspended sentence, and the discounts allowed; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's sentence affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed and sentence of 19 months' imprisonment affirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Franco Kuan, Department of JusticeILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO
Appellant Counsel: self-representedAmounts and remedies
- Total Imprisonment Term (months): 19
- Imprisonment for Three Charges (months): 18
- Previously Suspended Sentence Activated (months): 2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence From Magistrates' Court; Judgment on Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive
- 02
Whether activation of a suspended sentence and making it consecutive was appropriate
- 03
Whether discounts for guilty plea and surrender were correctly applied
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant contended she had been dealt with too severely and sought a reduction of sentence.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted there was no basis to disturb the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion and that the concurrent and consecutive sentences, activation of the suspended sentence and the discounts applied were appropriate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law sentencing principles applied by the Magistrates' Court and High Court
Sentencing courts have a broad discretion to determine appropriate starting points and discounts for guilty pleas and other mitigating factors
- 02
Established sentencing practice and principles
Concurrent sentences for offences committed on the same occasion and consecutive sentences for offences on different occasions may be imposed where appropriate
- 03
Sentencing doctrine and Magistrates' Court practice
A suspended sentence may be activated when subsequent offending occurs during the suspension period and may be ordered to run consecutively to other sentences
- 04
Sentencing principles and Magistrates' Court practice
Reduction in sentence may be given for surrender to authorities and for guilty pleas, depending on the circumstances
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court found no basis to interfere with the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion, including the starting points, the application of concurrent and consecutive sentences, activation of the suspended sentence, and the discounts allowed; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate's sentence affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed and sentence of 19 months' imprisonment affirmed.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 9 October 2014
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· 9 October 2014
HCMA 400/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 400 OF 2014 (ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 2693 OF 2014) ____
BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent and ILOCO, TERESITA GILLACO Appellant ____ Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 9 October 2014 Date of Judgment: 9 October 2014 ___
J U D G M E N T ___ This Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three charges. Charge 1 was of using a false travel document. Charge 2 was of making a false representation to an immigration assistant. Charge 3 was of possession of a false travel document. On each charge, a starting point of 15 months was adopted and discounted to 12 months for a guilty plea. Because the offences under the first two charges were committed on the same day, the sentences for them were made concurrent. Because the offence under the third charge was committed on a different day and involved a different false travel document, 6 months of the sentence for it were made consecutive to the concurrent sentences under the first two charges. So the Appellant received a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on these three charges. The offences under the first two charges in the present case were committed during the period of suspension of a suspended sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment passed on the Appellant in an earlier case. The Magistrate activated that suspended sentence and made it consecutive to the 18 months’ imprisonment on these three charges. Because the Appellant had surrendered herself to the Immigration Department, the Magistrate gave her a further discount of one month. So the Appellant received an overall sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment. She now appeals against sentence, complaining that she had been dealt with too severely. In all circumstances, I find no basis on which to interfere with how the Magistrate dealt with the Appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (V Bokhary) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court The appellant appeared in person Mr Franco Kuan, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
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.