Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000002/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 March 1990 before Hon Sir Derek Cons, V-P, Kempster, JA and Barnes, J.
Criminal law – sentencing – immigration offences – review of sentence by Attorney General – s 81A(1) Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) – possession of forged travel document contrary to s 42(2)(c)(i) Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) – unlawful remaining in Hong Kong contrary to s 38(1)(b) Immigration Ordinance – substantial consideration is the offender's unlawful presence in the colony – purpose of sentencing is deterrence – guideline of 15 months imprisonment after guilty plea – whether offender under 21 may receive custodial sentence for immigration offence – s 109A Criminal Procedure Ordinance and 3rd Schedule – whether sentences of one day and three months were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate – humanitarian mitigation – ill parent known to offender at time of entry – substitution of 12 months imprisonment in each case – Court of Appeal CAAR 1/1990 and CAAR 2/1990 – Kempster, JA giving judgment of the court – sentences quashed and 12 months substituted in each case.
Legal issues: Adequacy and principle of sentence for forged travel document offence by an illegal immigrant · Imprisonment as appropriate disposal for immigration offenders under 21 · Adequacy of custodial sentences for eight illegal immigrants remaining unlawfully · Humanitarian mitigation arising from ill parent of illegal immigrant
Outcome: All nine sentences reviewed were quashed. Liu Chi Ping's one-day sentence was replaced with 12 months imprisonment. The eight respondents' three-month sentences were each replaced with 12 months imprisonment. The Attorney General's applications for review were substantially allowed.