HKSAR v. Vu Hong Quang also known as Nguyen Van Quang

DCCC 750/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 750 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong and one charge of breach of deportation order.

2.On 25 June 2014, a police officer intercepted the defendant in Tai Kok Tsui.  The defendant admitted being a Vietnamese who sneaked into Hong Kong from Shenzhen by a goods vehicle.  He was the subject of a deportation order. 

3.The defendant admitted that he was aware of the deportation order in 2006 prohibiting him from entering Hong Kong at any time thereafter.  He said he first sneaked to the mainland from Vietnam on 21 June 2014 and then a few days later he sneaked into Hong Kong to receive medical treatment for AIDS.

4.The defendant is aged 32.  He has six previous appearances in court with 11 records of conviction.  Among the convictions, four were for unlawful remaining in Hong Kong and three for breach of deportation order.  He also has records for assault, burglary and possession of arm and ammunition.  He was last sentenced to a total term of 27 months for unlawful remaining and breach of deportation order on 20 April 2012. 

5.In the written submission for mitigation, Miss Liu, solicitor for the defendant, says the defendant worked as a casual worker in Vietnam.  He came to Hong Kong to seek medical treatment for his AIDS disease as he could not afford the costs of treatment in Vietnam.  He did not have any intention to commit any other criminal offences in Hong Kong. 

6.Miss Liu draws my attention to four Court of Appeal cases⁽¹⁾ on sentencing.  She asks the court to follow Nguyen Cong Su, where the appellant had a similar criminal record as the defendant, and pass a similar sentence, ie 20 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1 and 22 months on Charge 2, to run concurrently. 

7.In my view, Nguyen Cong Su did not lay down a tariff guideline.  The Court of Appeal in that case was considering the point whether the sentences for the two offences ordered by the sentencing judge should be partly consecutive and ruled that the sentences should run concurrently. The court was not laying down a sentencing guideline for a defendant having three previous convictions for breach of deportation order and four previous convictions for unlawful remaining in Hong Kong. 

8.The usual sentence for unlawful remaining, upon a plea of guilty, for a first offender should be 15 months’ imprisonment.  The starting point after trial for the first offence of breach of deportation order is generally 27 months’ imprisonment.

9.In my judgment, aggravated by the recurrence of each charge and the previous record for other offences, the proper starting point for Charge 1 and Charge 2 should be 33 months and 36 months respectively.

10.The defendant will have one-third reduction for his plea of guilty and therefore his sentences should be reduced to 22 months and 24 months.  The sentences are to run concurrently.  The total term of imprisonment is therefore 2 years’ imprisonment.