違反遞解離境令與非法逗留罪的判刑？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v TA DINH SON also known as BUI TRONG KHOAI and NGO VAN THANH - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Stock VP 及 Barnes J - 判決日期：2014年1月9日 ### 案情摘要 申請人因一項企圖盜竊罪及兩項入境事務罪行，被判處總刑期42個月監禁。他承認三項控罪：企圖盜竊、非法入境後未經入境事務處處長授權而留在香港，以及違反遞解離境令。申請人為越南籍，聲稱多次違反遞解離境令是為了尋找在香港失散的家人。然而，他有多次類似罪行的前科，包括多次違反遞解離境令及非法逗留香港，並曾因其他罪行被判監。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人提出上訴，其法律代表陳大律師認為原審法官在判刑原則上犯錯，不應將違反遞解離境令罪的部分刑期與非法逗留香港罪的刑期分期執行。他認為非法逗留香港罪的罪責並未增加違反遞解離境令罪的嚴重性。上訴法庭需審視此論點，並決定是否應調整判刑。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官將違反遞解離境令罪的部分刑期與非法逗留香港罪的刑期分期執行，屬原則性錯誤。法庭引用 HKSAR v Bui Van Khai [2013] 2 HKLRD 471 等案例，指出違反遞解離境令罪的嚴重性已包含非法逗留香港的元素，因此兩罪的刑期應同期執行。法庭強調，違反遞解離境令罪（根據《入境條例》第43(1)(a)條）比非法逗留香港罪（根據第38(1)(b)條）更為嚴重，其最高刑罰亦更高。法庭亦澄清了「量刑起點 (starting point)」的定義，指出應指首次犯罪者在沒有加重或減輕情節下的適當刑罰。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 HKSAR v Bui Van Khai [2013] 2 HKLRD 471，支持違反遞解離境令罪與非法逗留香港罪的刑期應同期執行的原則。此外，亦引用 HKSAR v Pham Van Tuan CACC 272 of 2010、HKSAR v Nguyen Chi Trung, HCMA 1095 of 2001、HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin, [2004] HKEC 1072、HKSAR v Mohamed Malurdeen Mohamed Riyaz [2003] HKEC 1091 及 HKSAR v Joned Asri CACC 345 of 2012，以確立違反遞解離境令罪的量刑原則及起點。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准上訴許可，並將上訴聆訊視為正式上訴。法庭撤銷原審法官就違反遞解離境令罪判處的24個月監禁，改判為28個月監禁。法庭同時撤銷了將部分刑期分期執行的命令，改為命令違反遞解離境令罪的28個月刑期與非法逗留香港罪的18個月刑期同期執行。企圖盜竊罪的12個月刑期維持不變，並與上述同期執行的刑期分期執行，總刑期為40個月監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了違反遞解離境令罪與非法逗留香港罪的判刑原則，即兩罪的刑期應同期執行，因前者已涵蓋後者的罪責。此外，法庭亦強調了「量刑起點」的正確理解，應指首次犯罪者在沒有加重或減輕情節下的刑罰，而非考慮加重情節後的刑罰。法庭亦對屢次違反遞解離境令的被告發出警告，指出未來再犯將面臨更嚴厲的判刑。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v TA DINH SON also known as BUI TRONG KHOAI and NGO VAN THANH - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Stock VP and Barnes J - Date of Judgment: 9 January 2014 ### Factual Background The applicant was sentenced to a total of 42 months' imprisonment for one offence of attempted theft and two immigration offences. He pleaded guilty to three charges: attempted theft, remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully, and breach of a deportation order. The Vietnamese applicant claimed his repeated breaches of the deportation order were to search for his family, with whom he lost contact in Hong Kong. However, he had a string of previous convictions for similar offences, including multiple breaches of deportation orders and unlawful stays, as well as other criminal convictions. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant appealed, arguing through his counsel, Mr. Chan, that the sentencing judge erred in principle by ordering part of the sentence for breach of a deportation order to run consecutively to the sentence for remaining in Hong Kong without authority. Mr. Chan contended that the offence of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong does not add to the culpability constituted by the breach of deportation offence. The Court of Appeal had to determine the validity of this argument and whether the sentence should be adjusted. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the sentencing judge's order for part of the sentence for breach of a deportation order to run consecutively to the sentence for remaining in Hong Kong without authority was an error in principle. Citing cases such as HKSAR v Bui Van Khai [2013] 2 HKLRD 471, the court held that the culpability inherent in the offence of being in Hong Kong in contravention of a deportation order already encompasses the elements of unlawfully remaining, and thus sentences for these two offences should run concurrently. The court emphasized that breach of a deportation order (under section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance) is a more serious offence than unlawfully remaining (under section 38(1)(b)), carrying a higher maximum penalty. The court also clarified the definition of a "starting point" in sentencing, stating it should reflect the appropriate sentence for a first offender in the absence of aggravating or mitigating features. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Bui Van Khai [2013] 2 HKLRD 471 to support the principle that sentences for breach of a deportation order and unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong should run concurrently. Additionally, HKSAR v Pham Van Tuan CACC 272 of 2010, HKSAR v Nguyen Chi Trung, HCMA 1095 of 2001, HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin, [2004] HKEC 1072, HKSAR v Mohamed Malurdeen Mohamed Riyaz [2003] HKEC 1091, and HKSAR v Joned Asri CACC 345 of 2012 were referenced to establish sentencing principles and starting points for breach of deportation orders. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal sentence and treated the hearing as the appeal. The court set aside the 24-month imprisonment sentence for the third charge (breach of deportation order) and substituted it with a 28-month imprisonment sentence. The order for part of the sentence on the third charge to run consecutively was also set aside; instead, the 28-month sentence for the third charge was ordered to run wholly concurrently with the 18-month sentence for the second charge (unlawfully remaining). The 12-month sentence for attempted theft remained unaltered and was ordered to run wholly consecutively to the concurrent sentences, resulting in a total of 40 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the sentencing principle that sentences for breach of a deportation order and unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong should run concurrently, as the former offence's culpability already includes the latter. Furthermore, the court clarified the correct understanding of a "starting point" in sentencing, defining it as the sentence for a first offender without aggravating or mitigating factors. The court also issued a stern warning to the applicant, indicating that any future breaches of the deportation order would result in a significantly more severe sentence. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.