Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. LEONARDA MILLO SIMON

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Magistrate had applied relevant sentencing principles, found the appellant's account not credible and the mitigating material did not show the sentence was wrong in principle or excessive; therefore there was no basis to interfere and the appeal against sentence was dismissed, upholding the total 20 month imprisonment.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal against sentence dismissed
  • Original sentence upheld: 15 months imprisonment on possession (s.7A(1A) Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 117) and 10 months imprisonment on breach of condition of stay (s.41 Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115) with 5 months of the second term ordered consecutive — total 20 months imprisonment

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Miss Kathie Cheung, SGC, Department of Justice

Leonarda Millo Simon

Appellant Counsel: self-represented

Amounts and remedies

  • First Charge Months: 15
  • Second Charge Months: 10
  • Total Sentence Months: 20

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Sentence — Judgment Delivered 29 January 2004

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant pleaded guilty, claimed she had picked up another person's Hong Kong Identity Card, said she had overstayed since 5 February 1998, explained she remained in Hong Kong because she lacked money for a ticket and was supported by friends, begged for mercy citing inability of others to care for her children and raised family matters including an alleged rape of her daughter.
Respondent
Respondent submitted the Magistrate had properly applied sentencing principles (including Chan Man Mo), found the appellant's account not credible, and that the mitigation offered did not demonstrate the sentence was wrong in principle or excessive; accordingly the appeal should be dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Beeson J; established appellate sentencing principle

    Appellate courts will not interfere with a sentence unless it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive

  2. 02

    Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 117; Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115

    Possession of another person's identity document and immigration breaches are serious and attract custodial sentences

  3. 03

    Sentencing practice; cited Chan Man Mo

    A sentencing court may order part of a sentence to run consecutively where appropriate

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Magistrate had applied relevant sentencing principles, found the appellant's account not credible and the mitigating material did not show the sentence was wrong in principle or excessive; therefore there was no basis to interfere and the appeal against sentence was dismissed, upholding the total 20 month imprisonment.

Obiter and limits

  • Sympathy for personal circumstances does not, without supporting evidence, justify reducing a sentence
  • Allegations of family trauma (including an alleged rape) must be supported by evidence to affect sentencing

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld

  • Appeal against sentence dismissed
  • Original sentence upheld: 15 months imprisonment on possession (s.7A(1A) Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 117) and 10 months imprisonment on breach of condition of stay (s.41 Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115) with 5 months of the second term ordered consecutive — total 20 months imprisonment

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 29 January 2004

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· 29 January 2004

HKSAR v. LEONARDA MILLO SIMON

bjbj HCMA 1195/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1195 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 3642 /2003) ____

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and LEONARDA MILLO SIMON Appellant ____ Before: Hon Beeson J in Court Date of Hearing: 29 January 2004 Date of Judgment: 29 January 2004 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ The Appellant was charged with one count of Possession of an Identity Card relating to Another Person, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 117 and one count of Breach of Condition of Stay, contrary to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.

115. She pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on the first charge and 10 months imprisonment on the second charge with 5 months of the term of the second charge ordered to be consecutive to the 15-month term. The total sentence was 20 months imprisonment. She now appeals against both sentences. The facts show that she was stopped by the police and when asked to produce proof of identity, she produced a Hong Kong Identity Card relating to another person. She claimed to have picked up the card that she produced to the officer. She was arrested on 9 November 2003 and was found to have been overstaying since 5 February 1998. The Magistrate was told that she had lived with friends in Hong Kong, because she lacked the money to buy an air-ticket and had been supported by her friends for over 5 years. Unsurprisingly the Magistrate found that very hard to believe. In sentencing, the Magistrate took note of the principles set out in Chan Man Mo. Today, the Appellant asked forgiveness for her offences and said that nobody is able to look after her children if she was in prison because her parents were aged. She also set out in a letter to the court various matters relating to the problem of her daughter who was, allegedly, raped by her father, the ex-husband of the Appellant. Although one has sympathy for the personal problems of people in Appellant s position, there was nothing put before me to show that the sentence was wrong in principle, or excessive. I can find no basis to interfere with the sentence and this appeal against sentence is dismissed. (C-M Beeson) Judge of the Court of First Instance Miss Kathie Cheung, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Leonarda Millo Simon, Appellant, in person

PAGE -

A

B

C

D

E

F G H 1udk 1udk

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V i$&`G user HCMA-abc.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.

Chan Man Mo

Case cited

Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 117, s.7A(1A)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, s.41

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.