HKSAR v. NGUYEN QUANG HUNG

DCCC906/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 906 OF 2012

———————-

HKSAR
v.
Nguyen Quang-hung
———————-

Before: H H Judge Browne

Date: 9 November 2012 at 10.30 am

Present: Ms Lisa Go, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Miss Chan Yee-man, Ada, of S H Chan & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence: (1) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong (在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權而留在香港)
(2) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)

———————

Reasons for Sentence

———————

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges. The first is remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration.The second is breach of a deportation order.

2. At 1305 hours on 25 July 2012, the defendant was intercepted by police officers outside exit C of Kwai Fong MTR Station in KwaiChung. He failed to produce any identification documents and admitted frankly to the police right at the outset that he had sneakedinto Hong Kong from the mainland that day. It was discovered that he was subject to a deportation order.

3. The defendant was later interviewed and the interview was video-recorded and during that interview, he stated that he had sneakedinto Hong Kong from Shenzhen by hiding underneath a truck. He claimed that he had come to Hong Kong to cure his addiction to dangerousdrugs. He admitted that he was in breach of the deportation order that was imposed upon him on 14 March 2007.

4. The defendant has two previous court appearances, one in 2006, the second in 2008. In 2006, for possession of an offensive weaponand for remaining unlawfully in Hong Kong, he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. In 2008, he was before the court for goingequipped for stealing, breach of a deportation order and remaining unlawfully in Hong Kong. He was sentenced to a total of 24 months’imprisonment. The 6 months’ imprisonment imposed for going equipped was ordered to be served consecutively.

5. The defendant is aged 29. He was educated to primary level. He worked as a fisherman in Vietnam. He is married with two daughtersaged 8 and 1, and he is a drug addict. His father is deceased and his mother lives with himself, his wife and the two daughters.

Mitigation

6. It was urged upon me that credit should be given to the defendant for his guilty plea which was entered at an early stage and theco-operation with the police officers when he was arrested.

7. The defendant asserted that he had come to Hong Kong to cure his addiction problem. I doubt whether that was the true reason hecame here. Having considered various authorities in connection with cases of a similar kind, I am of the view that in respect ofCharge 1, the appropriate sentence after plea is 20 months’ imprisonment, and in respect of Charge 2, 21 months’ imprisonment,both sentences to be served concurrently.

Browne
District Judge