22 Jun 2012
The trial judge properly found the meeting/interview record accurate and the appellant's admissions reliable; those admissions and corroborating documentary evidence established a conspiracy to defraud immigration officers and that the appellant acted pursuant to that conspiracy by entering Hong Kong, bringing the conduct within s6(1)(c); accordingly the conviction was upheld.
29 Mar 2000
The Magistrate's sentence of 12 months imprisonment per offence, ordered to run concurrently, was within the sentencing discretion in light of the Appellant's mitigating circumstances and the statutory seriousness of the offences; there was no basis to disturb the sentence on appeal.
8 Dec 1998
Where a defendant used a forged travel document and made a false representation to Hong Kong immigration authorities en route to another territory, the case is distinguishable from a mere transit lounge possession case and warrants a sentence higher than the typical transit range; having regard to precedent and prevailing magistracy practice the appropriate substituted sentence is 12 months' imprisonment to run concurrently.
22 Apr 1998
Given the multiplicity of employees, sustained and systematic commercial conduct, and the appellant's arrangement of false documentation to regularise employees' status, the Magistrate's starting point of 18 months (reduced by one-third for guilty pleas to 12 months) was a lawful and proportionate exercise of sentencing discretion; the sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Jun 1986
The trial judge either overestimated the basic appropriate period or failed to give sufficient weight to strong mitigating factors; the offences are of sufficient gravity to require immediate custody but, after proper allowance for mitigation and guilty plea, the appropriate sentence is one year imprisonment and the Court of Appeal varied the original two‑year sentence to one year.