HKSAR v. LIN, HUASHENG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LIN, HUASHENG
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 27 May 2011
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA230/2011
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 27 May 2011
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA230/2011
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 JusticeLin, Huasheng
Appellant Counsel: Lin, Huasheng, in personAmounts and remedies
- Payment to Middleman: HKD 30,000
- Sentence Length: months 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for using a false travel document and making a false representation
- 02
Whether the appellant's personal and family circumstances justify departure from the standard sentence
- 03
Application and quantum of plea discount
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
Legal principles
- 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
- 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.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 27 May 2011
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
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.