Hon. Mr Justice Woo, JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
高等法院上訴法庭法官胡國興宣讀上訴法庭判案書:

The applicant for leave to appeal, Ho Bing-kee, was convicted of 9 charges after trial by Deputy District Court Judge M Tong on 20 December 1999 and was sentenced to 3 1/2 years’ imprisonment. On 4 January 2000 the applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence and on 29 February 2000 for leave to appeal against conviction out of time.
上訴許可申請人何炳基於1999年12月20日經審訊後被區域法院暫委法官唐文裁定九項罪名成立，判刑3年半監禁。申請人於2000年1月4日提出就刑罰上訴許可的申請，又於2000年2月29日提出逾期申請，要求許可就判罪上訴。

At the trial the applicant was the 1st defendant, the other person Wong Chi-kong, 71 years of age, was the 2nd defendant. The applicant was charged with nine charges, ie, the 1st to 4th and the 7th to 11th charges, while Wong Chi-kong was charged with two charges, the 5th and 6th charges. Wong Chi-kong turned prosecution witness after admitting the 5th charge.
在原審中申請人為第一被告，另一人黃志剛（71歲）為第二被告。申請人被控九項罪名，即第1至4項及第7至11項，而黃志剛則被控兩項罪名，即第5及6項。黃志剛承認第5項控罪後，轉為控方證人。

The 1st to 4th and the 7th charges stated that the applicant made false representations for the purpose of obtaining an entry permit, contrary to s. 42(1)(c) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115. Those five charges stated that the 1st defendant, on respectively 1 October, 11 October, 5 December, 13 December of 1996 and 29 January 1997 made representations, knowing the same to be false or not believing the same to be true for the purpose of obtaining a Hong Kong Entry Permit Audit No. 071044 in that, in the application for the said entry permit, he falsely represented that he was applying for the said Hong Kong Entry Permit on behalf of Wong Chi-yin (who in fact was Leung King-wah). The 8th charge stated that the applicant, on 24 April 1997, had in his possession of the said unlawfully obtained Hong Kong Entry Permit. The 9th and 10th charges stated that the applicant, on respectively 16 February 1998 and 8 July 1998, aided, abetted, counselled or procured Leung King-wah to make a representation which he (the applicant) knew to be false or did not believe to be true, for the purpose of obtaining six Hong Kong Entry Permits Audit Nos. E005652 to E005657 ie, that the said Leung King-wah was Wong Chi-yin and that the said Leung King-wah was applying for the said entry permits on behalf of Wong Chi-yin’s six children, namely, Wong Man-lan, Wong Kwun-kin, Wong Kwun-yin, Wong Man-yee, Wong Man-ping and Wong Kwun-keung. The 11th charge stated that the applicant, on 8 July 1998, had in his possession the said six unlawfully obtained Hong Kong Entry Permits. The aiding and abetting offences stated above were contrary to s.89 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap. 221 and s.42(1)(c) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115; the offences of unlawful possession were contrary to s.42(2)(c)(i) of  Cap. 115.
控罪第1至4及7項分別控訴申請人為取得入境證而作出虛假的申述，違反香港法例第115章《入境條例》第42(1)(c)條。該五項控罪內容分別指第一被告於1996年10月1日、10月11日、12月5日、12月13日及1997年1月29日等日子，為取得核數編號為071044的香港入境證而作出明知為虛假或自己亦不相信為真確的申述，即在申請該入境證時，虛假地表示是代表黃志賢（其實該人是梁敬華）申請該香港入境證。第8項控罪指申請人於1997年4月24日管有非法取得的該香港入境證。第9及10項控罪則分別指申請人於1998年2月16日及1998年7月8日協助、教唆、慫使或促致梁敬華作出明知為虛假或自己亦不信為真確的申述，即表示該梁敬華是黃志賢及該梁敬華代表黃志賢的六名子女，即黃敏蘭、黃冠堅、黃冠賢、黃敏儀、黃敏冰及黃冠強，申請六張核數編號為E005652至E005657的香港入境證。第11項控罪指申請人於1998年7月8日管有該六張非法取得的香港入境證。上述的協助或教唆罪行，是違反香港法例第221章《刑事訴訟程序條例》第89條及第115章《入境條例》第42(1)(c)條，而管有罪則違反香港法例第115章第42(2)(c)(i)條。

The 5th charge which Wong Chi-kong admitted was also aiding and abetting the making of a false representation for the purpose of obtaining an entry permit in that Wong Chi-kong, on 13 December 1996, in Hong Kong, aided and abetted Ho Bing-kee (the applicant) to make a representation, which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true for the purpose of obtaining Hong Kong Entry Permit Audit No. 070144, in that he aided and abetted the said Ho Bing-kee to represent that he was applying for the said Hong Kong Entry Permit on behalf of Wong Chi-yin ( who in fact was Leung King-wah ).
黃志剛所承認的第5項控罪，亦是協助及教唆取得入境證而作出虛假的申述，其內容為黃志剛於1996年12月13日在香港，協助及教唆何炳基（即申請人）為取得核數號碼為070144的香港入境證，而作出明知為虛假或自己亦不相信為真確的申述，即協助及教唆何炳基表示他代表黃志賢（其實該人是梁敬華）申請該香港入境證。

At the outset of the trial, the Prosecution and the Defence were able to agree extensively regarding the facts of the case and, in accordance with s. 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, reached agreement on the seizure and handling of a large volume of documentary evidence. The Prosecution only called two witnesses. PW1 was Leung King-wah named in the particulars of the offences. He was a mainlander whose native place was QingYuan, Guangdong. He was a merchant who came to Hong Kong by way of a two way permit to give evidence for the Prosecution and he was under an immunity granted by the Secretary for Justice that he would not be prosecuted for the offences he had committed on which he would give evidence at the trial. PW2 was the 2nd defendant in this case, Wong Chi-kong. After he admitted the 5th charge, he was willing to give evidence for the Prosecution. He was born in Hong Kong but fled from the place with his parents to their ancestral home town PanYu during WWII when the Japanese invaded Hong Kong. In 1949 he returned to Hong Kong and in 1957 settled back in PanYu. On 6 April 1995, he came to Hong Kong holding the Hong Kong Entry Permit obtained by the applicant on his behalf from the Immigration Department. He has two younger brothers and two younger sisters. Wong Chi-yin is one of his younger brothers who was also born in Hong Kong and later brought back to the mainland. Since 1950, Wong Chi Yin had already settled and worked in QinHuangDu of Hebei. Wong Chi-kong had all along kept in contact with Wong Chi-yin and he knew that he had two sons, namely Wong Hiu-ning and Wong Hiu-dong.
案件開審時，控辯雙方均能就案情達致廣泛的共識，並據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第65C條，就大量文件證物的檢獲及處理達成協議。控方只傳召了兩名證人在庭上作供。控方第一證人是控罪內容所提及之梁敬華。他是一名內地人士，原藉廣東清遠，是一名商人。他以雙程證來港為控方作供，並獲律政司司長承諾不會因他在本案作供中述及他所干犯有關的罪行而對他進行起訴。控方第二證人為案中之第二被告黃志剛。他承認了第5項控罪後，願意為控方作證。他在香港出生，但由於日本人在第二次世界大戰時入侵香港，所以他當時隨父母逃難回到祖藉番禺。1949年他回到香港，1957年再到番禺定居。1995年4月6日，他持着申請人替他向香港入境處申請到的香港入境證來港。他共有兩弟兩妺，而黃志賢就是他其中一名弟弟。黃志賢亦是在香港出生，之後被帶回大陸，自1950年起，他便已經去了河北省秦皇島定居及工作。黃志剛一直與黃志賢保持聯絡，知道他有兩名兒子，分別為黃曉寧及黃曉東。

On 6 April 1995, Wong Chi-kong came to settle in Hong Kong, holding the Hong Kong Entry Permit obtained through the assistance of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant asked for his help to make an application in his brother’s name for a person from QinXinXian to come to Hong Kong. In view of the fact that the applicant had successfully applied on his behalf for him to come to Hong Kong, Wong Chi-kong agreed to his request. Wong Chi-kong wrote down two sets of documents at the applicant’s dictations on two separate occasions. The documents were given to the applicant in support of Wong Chi-yin’s application for immigration. Wong Chi-kong, of course, was well aware of the fact that his brother Wong Chi-yin had no intention of coming to Hong Kong. Besides, Wong Chi-kong, under the abetment of the applicant, falsely represented to Immigration officers that the applicant for entry, the so- called Wong Chi-yin, was his own brother and made false replies to them as instructed by the applicant.
黃志剛於1995年4月6日持由申請人協助下所得到的香港入境證來港定居後，申請人要求他協助，以他弟弟的名義，替一個清新縣的人申請來港。黃志剛鑑於申請人曾代其成功申請來港的關係，所以答應他的要求。黃志剛分別兩次在申請人背默的方式下，書寫兩份文件，交給申請人支持黃志賢的入境申請。當然黃志剛清楚知道他的弟弟黃志賢根本沒有打算來香港。另外，黃志剛亦在申請人教唆下向入境處職員訛稱申請入境的所謂黃志賢為其親弟弟，並依照申請人教他的方法，向入境處人員作出虛假的回應。

PW1 Leung King-wah, born on 18 November 1950, had 4 children with his wife. The so-called six children of Wong Chi-yin, as referred to in the 9th to 11th charges, were not his children. He said his first meeting with the applicant was inside the flat of a friend, Chu Han-lan. Chu Han-lan addressed the applicant as “Uncle Kee” as she introduced him to PW1. The applicant told the witness that the witness could assume Wong Chi-yin’s name by a Hong Kong Birth Certificate in Wong’s name so as to apply for himself and his children to come to Hong Kong. Though the witness did not quite believe in what the applicant had said, still he agreed to the plan. The applicant then asked the witness to arrange for some certificates of identity sufficient to prove that he was Wong Chi-yin. During the meeting, the three of them had discussed to let Chu Han-lan and her daughter pretend as Wong Chi-yin’s children for their applications for immigration to Hong Kong. Eventually, as PW1’s children had no intention of coming to Hong Kong, the applicant arranged four other  persons together with Chu Han-lan and her daughter, all assuming to be the children of PW1 who went under Wong Chi-yin’s name.
控方的第一證人梁敬華於1950年11月18日出生。他與太太共有四名子女，而第9至11項控罪中所提及的黃志賢的所謂六名子女均非他的子女。他說他第一次與申請人會面是在他的一名朋友朱杏蘭的家中進行。朱杏蘭介紹申請人稱他為“基叔”給控方第一證人。申請人向證人說證人可以用一張以黃志賢為名的香港出生紙冒名頂替黃志賢，申請證人自己及他的子女到香港。證人雖然不太相信，但還是同意了有關的計劃。申請人於是要求證人弄來一些足以證明其身分為黃志賢的證件，以證明他是黃志賢。在會面中，三人曾相議讓朱杏蘭及她的女兒冒充黃志賢的子女，以之申請來港。其後由於控方第一證人的子女均不想到香港，所以申請人便找來另外四人與朱杏蘭母女一併冒充是控方第一證人冒名的黃志賢的子女。

PW1 deceived the relavant authorities in the mainland and was issued six sets of birth certificates containing false particulars, all for the use of Chu Han-lan and her daughter as well as the other four mainlanders arranged by the applicant. PW1 also obtained four mainland certificates of identity together with other proofs of identity in Wong Ch-yin’s name including a certificate of identity, a marriage certificate, a bicycle card, a certificate of residence and a ration card, all of which he gave to the applicant.
控方第一證人欺騙了內地的有關單位，並獲發給六張載有虛假內容的出生證明書，以供朱杏蘭母女及另外申請人所找來的四名內地人士之用。另外控方第一證人又取得四張內地身分證及其他以黃志賢為名的內地身分證、結婚證明書、單車證、戶口簿及糧食證等等，交給申請人。

Around June 1997, the applicant told PW1 that he had obtained a Hong Kong Entry Permit for him. The applicant asked for HK$300,000 from PW1 as his reward for arranging him to come to Hong Kong. As the witness had no money, he gave the applicant an IOU signed by him dated 19 July 1997, with a title deed as security. Later as the applicant was not satisfied with the arrangements he asked PW1 to sign additionally a promissory note dated 21 July 1997 and also produce a copy of the registration certificate of his car, putting up a Benz 300, registration number Gui K01070 as a security for his debt in the sum of HK$300,000. Subsequently due to the applicant’s pressure for money, PW1 paid the applicant RMB￥30,000 in Guangzhou, the receipt of which was acknowledged in writing signed by the applicant. The documents mentioned above were exhibits produced with the agreement of the Prosecution and the Defence. After obtaining the Hong Kong Entry Permit from the applicant, PW1 then came to Hong Kong on 23 July 1997. Following his application for a Hong Kong ID card and Re-entry Permit, he returned to the mainland. During his stay in Hong Kong, he saw the applicant once to twice, mainly for plotting the arrival of the 6 children who passed off as Wong Chi-yin’s children under the assumed names as stated in the 9th and 10th charges.
1997年6月左右，申請人告訴控方第一證人已替他取得香港入境證。申請人向控方第一證人索取300,000元港幣作為安排他到香港的報酬。由於證人沒有錢，所以他簽了一紙日期為1997年7月19日的欠單，以房契作為欠款的抵押品，交給申請人。後來由於申請人不滿意有關安排，又要求控方第一證人簽了另外一張日期為1997年7月21日的承諾書，並交出一張其車輛登記證的副本，把一輛編號為《桂K01070》的奔馳300型號的房車抵押該筆300,000港元的欠款。其後又因申請人要求緊迫的關係，控方第一證人曾在廣州付過30,000元人民幣給申請人，申請人並且為此簽紙作實。上述各文件皆為控辯雙方同意之呈堂證物。控方第一證人由申請人處取得香港入境證後，便在1997年7月23日來到香港，之後他便申領了香港的身份證及回港證，跟着便返回內地。在港期間，他曾經見過申請人一至兩次，主要是為了策劃那六名偽冒黃志賢的子女來港，而他們的偽冒名字即為第9及10項控罪所述的名字。

In his Reasons for Verdict, the trial judge gave a detailed description and evaluation of the evidence mentioned above, reminding himself of the following regarding the witnesses and the following evidence:
在裁決理由書中，原審法官就上述的證據作出了詳細的陳述及評估，更就證人及下列各項證據向自己作出提醒：

The applicant had chosen not to give evidence. However, as he was a person with no conviction record, the judge reminded himself to consider carefully that he was less likely to commit the offence;
申請人並沒有選擇作供。但是由於他是沒有犯罪紀錄的人，法官提醒自己要小心考慮申請人因此會干犯控罪的可能性較低；

Although the applicant chose not to give evidence, the judge would not draw any unfavourable inference against him; and
雖然申請人選擇不作供，法官不會因此對他作出任何不利的推論；和

PW1 Leung King-wah and PW2 Wong Chi-kong were accomplices in this case, as alleged in the charges, such that they might try to shirk the responsibility for the crimes onto the applicant to their benefit. Accordingly the judge reminded himself to handle the evidence of the accomplices with extra care and to look for corroborative evidence in order to determine the weight of the testimonies of the two witnesses.
控方第一證人梁敬華及控方第二證人黃志剛皆是控罪所指案件之同謀，故他們作證時可能嘗試把案中的刑責推卸到申請人身上，從而使自己得益。故此法官提醒自己在處理共犯證據的時候，要格外小心及尋求佐證，以决定該兩名證人口供的份量。

The judge had also considered carefully the evidence of PW1 and PW2. There were some discrepancies regarding dates and what kind of documents they had read. However the judge considered that these discrepancies were of secondary importance and on minor issues, and that the evidence in these areas was less accurate due to a lapse of two to three years between the time of the incident and the time of the trial. It was not surprising at all that there were discrepancies in these peripheral matters; on the contrary, it rather underlined that the witnesses did not have any intention to fabricate against the applicant.
法官亦仔細考慮控方第一證人及第二證人的證供，在日子方面和他們曾看過甚麼文件方面上，有些出入，但法官認為這些都是次要的環節及枝節的問題，證供在這些地方不太準確，是因為案發時與審訊時有兩、三年的距離，所以證供在這些枝節上有些出入，實不足為奇，反而特顯出證人不是一心一意地去誣陷申請人。

The judge also carried out evaluation on the two loan bills in the sum of HK$300,000 signed by PW1. Those bills did not account for how the loan was made at all and there was not any record of any cheque with which the applicant had passed the money to PW1. Or, if the loan in the sum of HK$300,000 had been passed to PW1 in the form of cash, there was no acknowledgement of receipt whatsoever of the said sum by PW1. Therefore the judge did not accept the suggestion of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant had lent HK$300,000 to PW1. The judge found that the reason why PW1 was willing to sign the loan bills with his landed property and car as security was only for the exchange of the entry permit in Wong Chi-yin’s name. All these strongly corroborated the evidence of PW1. Besides, the judge also dealt with the applicant’s defence that he believed PW1 to be Wong Chi-yin, Wong Chi-kong’s blood brother. However, when PW1 and Wong Chi-kong’s evidence was viewed as a whole, they all pointed to the fact that the applicant knew perfectly well that Wong Chi-yin, on whose behalf he was making the application, was only the name of Wong Chi-kong’s younger brother. PW1 Leung King-wah was a QingYuan native. He was not in any way related to Wong Chi-kong and his brother Wong Chi-yin whose native place was PanYu. Moreover the applicant was well aware that Chu Han-lan and her daughter had falsely represented themselves as Wong Chi-yin’s children. These pieces of evidence as well as other documentary evidence firmly proved that the applicant had provided information which he knew to be false to the Immigration Department to obtain the entry permit in Wong Chi-yin’s name for the use of PW1 Leung King-wah and that he aided and abetted PW1 to deceive the Immigration Department to obtain the Hong Kong Entry Permits for those who assumed themselves to be Wong Chi-yin’s children as stated in the 9th to the 11th charges.
法官亦就控方第一證人所簽的300,000港元兩張借據，作出評估。該等借據根本沒有對借錢作出交待，也沒有任何申請人將錢交給控方第一證人的票據紀錄，但如該300,000港元的借款是以現金方式交給控方第一證人，卻又沒有任何控方第一證人的簽收作證。所以法官不接納代表申請人的大律師所提議申請人曾借給控方第一證人300,000港元。法官認為證據明顯證明控方第一證人之所以肯以房產及汽車抵押而簽下借據，僅是為了換取那個以黃志賢為名的入境證，均可作控方第一證人證供有力的佐證。另外，法官亦處理申請人的抗辯理由，就是他相信控方第一證人為黃志剛的親弟黃志賢。但是綜合控方第一證人及黃志剛的證供，明顯指出申請人明知他要代為申請入境的黃志賢，只是黃志剛的弟弟的名字，而控方第一證人梁敬華是一名清遠人士，與黃志剛及他的弟弟黃志賢兩人及他們原藉的番禺，並無關係，且申請人又明知朱杏蘭母女偽稱為黃志賢子女。這些證據和其他文件上的證據，確實證明申請人提供他明知虛假的資料給入境處，以獲取以黃志賢為名的入境證，供控方第一證人梁敬華之用，更協助及教唆控方第一證人向入境處騙取控罪第9至第11項所指之六個黃志賢的偽冒子女的香港入境證。

The evidence in this case is irrefutable and the trial judge has not erred in dealing with and evaluating the various aspects of the evidence; thus there would not be any chance of success for the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
此案證據確鑿，而原審法官在處理及評估各項證據方面，並無犯錯，固此申請人上訴推翻判罪，並無成功機會。

The applicant stated in this court that the trial judge had erred in that he had not considered the applicant’s evidence in relation to this case. Nevertheless this could not be a ground of appeal because at the trial, the applicant had chosen not to give evidence, so the trial judge had no way to consider his evidence.
在本庭，申請人說原審法官犯錯，因他沒有考慮申請人有關本案之證供。但是這不能成為上訴理由，因為在原審時申請人自己選擇不作供，原審法官無從考慮。

In the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence dated 4 January 2000, above the part where he put down his signature was printed the following:
在申請人2000年1月4日的判刑上訴許可申請通知書中，在申請人簽名的部份上面，印有如下的文字：

“It has been explained to me in detail that my appeal against sentence could be lodged along with my appeal against conviction. The appeals would be dealt with severally and the determination on each case would not bear any effect on the other.”
“本人經獲詳細解釋可用時「判罪」及「刑期」一併提出上訴，而兩項上訴當會獲得分別審理，且其裁決結果互無影響，各不相干。”

The applicant wrote on the notice of application for leave to appeal, “I, Ho Bing-kee (P197869), think that the sentence is too severe and therefore wish to apply for appeal to have the sentence reduced.” This shows that at that time his application for leave to appeal was only made against sentence. Moreover he clearly knew that the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence were different appeals but he only chose to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.
申請人在該通知書中親自寫上“本人何炳基（編號P197869）因對判刑之刑期過重，故欲申請上訴減刑。”由此可見，申請人當時只對刑期作出上訴許可的申請，且他亦應明顯知道，上訴判罪及上訴刑期是兩項不同的上訴，而他只選擇就刑期作出上訴許可的申請。

In his application for leave to appeal dated 29 February 2000, the applicant affirmed “I, Ho Bing-kee, had applied within the limit of 28 days for leave to appeal to have the sentence reduced. As I was not familiar with the proceedings I thought that the appeal against sentence covered the appeal against conviction. When I was in prison I learned from an officer that appeal against conviction and that against sentence were two different matters. Therefore I ask the authorities concerned to allow the application for leave to appeal out of time against conviction.”
在2000年2月29日的上訴許可申請通知書中，申請人宣誓“本人何炳基，已於28天限期內申請上訴減刑，當時因不懂法律程序，以為上訴減刑已包含上訴不服。但是本人在坐監期間，從所員處得知，原來上訴不服與減刑為兩回事。因此，本人要求有關方面批准過期上訴不服之申請為禱。”

In the notice of application dated 4 January 2000, the applicant should have understood from its content that the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and that against sentence were two different matters; therefore this court does not believe that the applicant, on signing the first notice of application, did not understand that the application for reduction of sentence did not include the application for leave to appeal against conviction. Further, in the words he had written he only stated that the sentence was too severe that he wished to apply for the sentence to be reduced. This clearly bore no reference to his conviction. Thus, his application for leave to appeal out of time against conviction is without sufficient grounds. Besides, this court has already stated above that the trial judge did make detailed evaluations in respect of various evidence and exhibits in this case, and in so doing he had not made any mistake. Therefore the appeal against conviction would have no chance of success. Accordingly this court refuses the application out of time for leave to appeal against conviction.
因在2000年1月4日的申請通知書中，申請人應從它的內容明白申請判罪及刑期上訴許可實為兩件不同之事，故此本庭不相信申請人在簽署該第一份通知書時，並不明白他減刑的申請不包括他判罪上訴許可的申請。再者，在他本人所書寫的文字中，只指出所判之刑期過重，故欲申請上訴減刑，明顯與他之被判罪名成立全無關係。故逾期申請上訴判罪之許可，並無足夠理由支持。另外，本庭已於上文指出，原審法官就本案之各項證供及證物皆有詳盡之評估，並無犯錯，故上訴判罪並無成功機會。因此，本庭拒絕判罪上訴許可逾期之申請。

Regarding sentence, the applicant was sentenced to 31/2 years’ imprisonment in respect of each charge, all to run concurrently.
刑期方面，申請人就九項控罪各被判入獄3年半，同期執行。

In his reasons for verdict, the trial judge said as follows:
在判刑理由書中，原審法官有如下的說話：

“The charges with which the 1st defendant was found guilty were very serious charges. The maximum sentence for all charges was 14 years’ imprisonment and $150,000 fine. The said charges showed clearly that the 1st defendant plotted and organised the offences which he committed with a view to make Hong Kong Immigration Department  believe that PW1 and his six assumed children were legal Hong Kong residents so that seven entry permits would be issued to them enabling them to come to Hong Kong with those documents while the 1st defendant obtained benefits from them, in that he made PW1 sign loan bills in the sum of HK$300,000 and also in fact obtained a sum of RMB￥30,000 from him.
“第一被告在本案中被本席裁定罪名成立的控罪，均為非常嚴重的控罪，所有控罪的最高刑罰為14年監禁及罰款15萬元。而有關的控罪明顯顯示第一被告是有計劃地及有組織地干犯上述罪行，其目的是要令香港人民入境事務處誤信第一控方證人及有關其六名僞冒子女均為香港的合法居民，從而對他們發出有關的七張入境證，讓他們得以持該等證件來港，而第一被告則收取他們的利益，即令第一控方證人簽下了30萬港元的借據及實際上由他那裡取得到了3萬元人民幣。

As Hong Kong is a small place with a large population, those who enter Hong Kong by way of illegal means will be sentenced severely. An illegal immigrant who has no previous conviction and admits his guilt in court will still face an immediate imprisonment of 15 months. If this case had not been exposed by the mainland authorities, the 1st defendant would have obtained, by illegal means, the right of abode in Hong Kong for seven mainlanders, enabling them to live and work freely in Hong Kong. The gravity of the circumstances in this case was self-evident.
由於香港是一個地小人多的社會，法庭對於從非法入境方式進入香港人士，均一律會判處重刑。就是一名在法庭認罪，沒有案底的非法入境者，也會面對15個月的即時監禁。而第一被告在是次計劃中，倘若不是由內地揭發出這宗案件的話，將會令七名內地人士可以非法取得香港的合法居留權，使他們可以隨意在香港定居及工作，其情節之嚴重自是不言而喻。

In my judgment the punishment will not serve as a deterrent if the 1st defendant is not severely sentenced. Therefore I take a total of 4 years as the starting point in this case. As the defendant has no previous convictions, after due consideration to the totality, I make a reduction on his sentence to 31/2 years. I now impose on the defendant a sentence of 3 years and 6 months for each charge of which he was convicted. As the charges formed one transaction, I order the term on each charge to run concurrently.”
為此，本席認為非重判第一被告，不足以儆效尤，故現在本席以整體4年為量刑起點，但鑑於被告是沒有案底，故本席將其刑罰酌量減為3年半，現本席判第一被告就每項被本席定罪的控罪，需要服刑3年零6個月。由於各項控罪均關乎一整體性的犯罪行為(one transaction)，故本席下令有關每控罪的刑期均同期執行。”

This Court considers that the reasons for the sentence mentioned above ample and unassailable and accepts all of them. The maximum sentence for each charge is 14 years’ imprisonment. The judge had in fact been very lenient to the applicant by taking a starting point of four years. This Court takes this opportunity to indicate that in this kind of cases — deceiving related authorities in the mainland and the Hong Kong Immigration Department by various illegal and deceptive means with planning and organisation to obtain, by way of deception, Hong Kong Entry Permits for pecuniary benefits — are very serious offences. If our courts are to deal with cases with similar features, the starting point of four years’ imprisonment should be viewed as too low.
本庭認為，判刑理由充分，無懈可擊，全為本庭所接納。控罪的最高刑罰為14年監禁，而法官只以4年監禁為量刑起點，其實對申請人已異常寬大。本庭更趁此表示，在此等案件中， 以各式各樣的非法及欺詐手法，矇騙內地有關單位及香港人民入境事務處，為了金錢上的利益而有計劃及組織地騙取香港入境證，實是極為嚴重的罪行，如有情節相約案件發生為法庭處理時，則4年監禁的量刑起點，應被視為過低。

This Court refuses the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
本庭拒絕上訴減刑許可的申請。

Miss Sin Pui-har Sr Asst DPP for HKSAR
香港特別行政區：由高級助理刑事檢控專員冼佩霞代表

Applicant for leave to appeal: in person
上訴許可申請人：無律師代表