HKSAR v. Nguyen Duc Vinh

DCCC 484/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 484 OF 2014

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two offences: one of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, and the second offence of breach of a deportation order, both contrary to the Immigration Ordinance.

2.The defendant has admitted the facts of the case and I have convicted him.

3.The facts show that on 9 April 2014 the defendant was arrested by a police officer in Sham Shui Po.  The defendant was unable to produce any proof of identity.  He later admitted he had travelled by boat from Vietnam on 7 April, entering Hong Kong on 8 April by hiding under a truck.  He admitted he was illegally in Hong Kong.

4.It also was the case that the defendant was subject to a deportation order dated 11 March 2009.  The defendant both indicated later that he knew he could not come to Hong Kong, as he had previously signed the receipt on the deportation order.

5.The defendant’s antecedents have been proved. He is no stranger to these offences.  From 2008, he has been convicted on three previous occasions of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration and two previous occasions for breach of a deportation order. 

6.Most recently, in 2011, he was sentenced to 18 months for remaining in Hong Kong and 12 months for breach of a deportation order, 6 months of that being served consecutively to the first charge, giving a total of 24 months’ imprisonment.

7.The defendant’s antecedent statement shows that he is 39 years old, from Vietnam, educated to secondary level, last discharge from Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre on 21 November 2012.  He is said to be single and a drug addict.

8.In mitigation, it was said the defendant is from Haiphong in Vietnam, has a 72-year-old mother.  He came to Hong Kong for economic reasons and is remorseful.

9.I now turn to the appropriate sentence.

10.In respect of the first charge (that is, remaining in Hong Kong), this is now the defendant’s fourth conviction for this offence. 

11.The sentences for second and subsequent offences of this nature, after deduction for plea of guilty, can be in the range of 18 months and above. 

12.For this offence, I will take a starting point at 33 months and I will reduce it to 22 months for his plea of guilty.

13.On the second offence, sentences of up to 3 years’ imprisonment can be adopted as a starting point for a second or subsequent offence.

14.This is a third offence.  I shall take a starting point at 39 months’ imprisonment and I reduce that to 26 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

15.It is clear from CACC 175/2012, HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, that these offences should be served concurrently.  They should not be treated as separate and distinct.

16.I shall adopt that position.

17.Accordingly, the sentences will be served concurrently; will give a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.