Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. KO HEI PING

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The magistrate properly accepted the police evidence that the appellant admitted he had 'sneaked into' Hong Kong, rejected the appellant's unsubstantiated claims of right of abode and memory of prior residence, and that conviction and the sentence of two years and three months imprisonment were warranted given the appellant's prior convictions; appeal dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence upheld
  • Sentence of two years and three months imprisonment affirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

KO Hei-ping

Appellant Counsel: Appellant in person

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Ms Bianca Cheng, Senior Government Counsel

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Length (months): 27
  • Total Previous Convictions: 6
  • Previous Unlawful Remaining Convictions: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Judgment Delivered

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant contended he had the right to be in Hong Kong, asserting he was born here and had memories of having lived in Hong Kong previously.
Respondent
The prosecution relied on the police officer's evidence that the appellant said he had 'sneaked into' Hong Kong and submitted the magistrate correctly rejected the appellant's claims; the appellant had multiple prior convictions for unlawful remaining and the sentence was appropriate.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Magistrate's reasoning in this judgment

    Entry without permission or lawful right to land constitutes unlawful presence; a claimed right of abode negates the need to have 'sneaked in' and must be established to rebut unlawful entry.

  2. 02

    Magistrate's reasoning in this judgment

    Sentence may be increased or upheld where the offender has multiple previous convictions for the same offence demonstrating recidivism.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The magistrate properly accepted the police evidence that the appellant admitted he had 'sneaked into' Hong Kong, rejected the appellant's unsubstantiated claims of right of abode and memory of prior residence, and that conviction and the sentence of two years and three months imprisonment were warranted given the appellant's prior convictions; appeal dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • The appellant's prior unlawful visits may explain his claimed memories of having been present in Hong Kong in the past.
  • The magistrate placed no weight on the appellant's assertion of being born in Hong Kong without corroboration.

Court disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

  • Conviction and sentence upheld
  • Sentence of two years and three months imprisonment affirmed

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 1 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 1 June 2007

HKSAR v. KO HEI PING

bjbj HCMA 312/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2007 ____

HKSAR and KO Hei-ping ____ Before: Hon Wright J in Court Date of Hearing: 1 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 1 June 2007 ___

JUDGMENT ___ The appellant was convicted after trial on one charge of remaining unlawfully in Hong Kong. He was represented at trial by a duty lawyer. He was sentenced to serve a period of two years and three months imprisonment. He appeals the conviction and sentence. The evidence was that the appellant was stopped by a police officer in the street on the 12 January 2007. He was asked for his identity card to which he responded that he did not have one. The police officer asked him what he was doing there: the appellant said that he had sneaked into Hong Kong from the railway station. The appellant gave evidence in which claimed that he had the right to be in Hong Kong having been born here. The magistrate correctly placed no weight on this assertion but considered, and rejected, the appellant s claim that he had memories of having lived in Hong Kong on previous occasions at different locations. The magistrate accepted the police officer s evidence as to what the appellant had said to him. He took the appellant's statement to the police officer that he had " sneaked into" Hong Kong as meaning he had entered unlawfully. Rightly, the magistrate took the view that if the appellant in fact had the right to land in Hong Kong or the right of abode here, he needed no permission to land and therefore did not need to have sneaked into Hong Kong. At that stage, of course,

the magistrate was unaware that the appellant had been convicted on three previous occasions, 1993, 2004 and 2005, of the offence of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong and, on each occasion, had been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Those unlawful visits to Hong Kong may well account for the appellant's memory of having been present here in the past. The appellant was correctly convicted. The appellant has a total of six previous criminal convictions of which three relate to his having unlawfully remained in Hong Kong. The sentence is entirely appropriate. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. (A R WRIGHT) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Ms Bianca Cheng, Senior 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

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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.