Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. STA ISABEL ROSEMARIE M

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court dismissed the appeal because there was no proper basis to overturn the Magistrate's adverse credibility finding and therefore no basis to overturn the conviction for breach of condition of stay.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for breach of condition of stay upheld.

02

Material facts

Parties

STA ISABEL ROSEMARIE M

Appellant Counsel: Appellant in Person

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Mr Cheung Wai-sun, Patrick, DPGC; Miss Agnes Chan, SGC (Department of Justice)

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance Judgment on Appeal From STCC 3297 of 2007

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant pleaded that she remained beyond the permitted date because communications with the Immigration Department led her to honestly believe she could stay.
Respondent
Respondent submitted that the appellant remained past the permitted date, the Magistrate rejected her evidence, and there was no basis to overturn the conviction.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Judgment reasoning by V. Bokhary J.

    An appellate court will not interfere with a trial magistrate's findings of fact and credibility absent a proper basis to conclude they were wrong.

  2. 02

    Judgment context

    Remaining in the jurisdiction beyond the permitted condition of stay constitutes breach of condition of stay for purposes of criminal prosecution.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because there was no proper basis to overturn the Magistrate's adverse credibility finding and therefore no basis to overturn the conviction for breach of condition of stay.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for breach of condition of stay upheld.

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 10 July 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· 10 July 2007

HKSAR v. STA ISABEL ROSEMARIE M

bjbj HCMA 579/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM STCC 3297 OF 2007) ____

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and STA ISABEL ROSEMARIE M Appellant ____ Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 10 July 2007 Date of Judgment: 10 July 2007 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ The Appellant s condition of stay limited her stay in Hong Kong to 11 June 1999 at the latest, but she remained here beyond that day so that she was still here on 10 April 2007 when she was arrested. Charged with breach of condition of stay, her evidence was that she remained in Hong Kong because, as the result of communications between her and the Immigration Department, she honestly believed that she could do so. The Magistrate rejected her evidence. Despite everything put forward by the Appellant in support of her appeal against conviction, I find no basis on which I can properly overturn her conviction for breach of condition of stay. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (V. Bokhary) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Appellant in Person Mr Cheung Wai-sun, Patrick, DPGC and Miss Agnes Chan, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

PAGE -

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 1udk 1udk i$&H @d/Z o!@R< 5%4j 5%4j >~t6 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.