Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. LIN, HUASHENG

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

In the absence of exceptional circumstances the court must maintain consistency with the established standard sentence of 18 months for these offences; applying the one-third plea discount produced a 12-month concurrent sentence and the appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 12 months imprisonment on the offences, to run concurrently
  • One-third discount applied to reflect plea

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Ms Rosaline Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor, Department of Justice

Lin, Huasheng

Appellant Counsel: Lin, Huasheng, in person

Amounts and remedies

  • Payment to Middleman: HKD 30,000
  • Sentence Length: months 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant sought leniency on grounds that his wife was unwell and not working, he had two daughters to support and elderly parents in their 80s.
Respondent
Prosecution and sentencing magistrate relied on sentencing consistency and established practice that these offences attract 18 months after trial, reduced to 12 months with one-third plea discount; appellant's circumstances were not exceptional and did not justify departing from the standard sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Magistrate's sentencing practice and findings in this judgment

    Standard sentence for using a false Chinese permit and making a false representation is 18 months imprisonment after trial

  2. 02

    Sentencing practice applied by the court in this judgment

    A one-third discount is applied for an early guilty plea where appropriate

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

In the absence of exceptional circumstances the court must maintain consistency with the established standard sentence of 18 months for these offences; applying the one-third plea discount produced a 12-month concurrent sentence and the appeal was dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • Consistency in sentencing prevents perceived injustice between offenders who commit similar offences
  • Personal mitigation such as family hardship will not justify deviation from standard sentence without exceptional evidence

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 12 months imprisonment on the offences, to run concurrently
  • One-third discount applied to reflect plea

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 27 May 2011

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· 27 May 2011

HKSAR v. LIN, HUASHENG

bjbj HCMA230/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 230/2011 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC NO. 1292 OF 2011) ____

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and LIN, HUASHENG ( imprisonment passed concurrently on two charges: the 1st, the using of a false travel document for the purposes of Part 2 of the Immigration Ordinance; and secondly, the making a false representation to an immigration assistant acting under Part 2 of the Ordinance. The facts reveal that the Appellant paid $30,000 to a middleman in mid-2006 to arrange for him to come to Hong Kong for work and he had used this false travel document since late 2006. The present offences were related to his entry into Hong Kong on 13 March 2011 when he used the false travel document to enter Hong Kong and falsely represented that the date of birth on the false Chinese permit was his true date of birth. The very experienced Magistrate, who deals with very many of these cases, rightly said, that for using a false Chinese permit to come to Hong Kong and making a false representation as to identity the usual sentence is 18 months imprisonment after trial. Thus, given the one-third discount for the plea, the sentences were rightly set at 12 months imprisonment. Today the Appellant very politely urges upon me that which was urged upon the Magistrate, which was really to say that he had wife who was not well. He did not work. He had two daughters to support and he had elderly parents in their 80s. I hope he will understand that in the absence of something

exceptional, and his case is not exceptional, that we look for consistency in sentence especially in cases like this where so many cases are so similiar. I hope he will understand that people will feel a sense of injustice if they have a longer sentence than the man in the next-door cell who has done exactly the same thing. This is a standard case that attracts the standard sentence. Accordingly, the appeal against it is dismissed. (P Line) Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court Ms Rosaline Leung, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant: Lin, Huasheng, in person

PAGE -

PAGE h,L{ |rlrlh h;8= h,L{ &`#$ - CRT16/27.5.2011/DB HCMA230/2011/Judgment

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

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

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

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 [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place bZ < =RM/L$t\ [g\k [g\k =RM/ hc_trans_14 Normal.dotm setup Microsoft Office Word judiciary Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 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.

Immigration Ordinance, Part 2

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.