Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000010/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 September 1996 before Nazareth, V.-P., Liu JA, Ching JA.
Criminal law and procedure – sentencing – employment of persons not lawfully employable contrary to s.17I(1) Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 – 21 charges – respondent pleaded guilty – magistrate imposed 3 months' imprisonment concurrent on each charge plus $500 fine – Attorney General's application for review – whether the guideline starting point of 15 months imprisonment in R v Wong Mok-din [1994] 2 HKCLR 96 applies to all s.17I(1) offences – held: yes, the Wong Mok-din guideline of 15 months applies to all s.17I(1) offences regardless of the classification or grouping of employees – approach in R v Tai Wai-hung (Mag.App.No.529 of 1993, unreported) of grading sentences by reference to grouping of persons not lawfully employable rejected – s.17I is directed at all employment of persons not lawfully employable by reference to s.17G(2) – whether a 50% discount for guilty plea is appropriate – held: no, only the usual one-third discount applies as a 50% discount lies at the bottom of the range reserved for the exceptional 'supergrass' category – appropriate starting point was at least 20 months having regard to recklessness, number of workers (21), commercial scale, exploitation, unemployment and increased penalties – one-third discount gives 13 months' imprisonment – but respondent had already served his 3-month sentence, was at liberty, and had suffered termination of his contract; further imprisonment would be disproportionately punitive – sentence of 13 months suspended for two years as to the unserved balance – maximum fines for s.17I(1) offences were increased from $250,000 to $350,000 in January 1996 – application granted.
Legal issues: Applicability of Wong Mok-din 15-month starting point to all s.17I(1) offences · Appropriate discount for guilty plea in s.17I(1) cases
Outcome: Application granted; the 21 concurrent sentences of 3 months' imprisonment were set aside and replaced with concurrent sentences of 13 months' imprisonment suspended for two years as to the unserved balance.
Cited by 2 cases