A A
DCCC 484/2014
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 484 OF 2014
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Nguyen Duc Vinh
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge Casewell
Date: 21 July 2014 at 10.37 am
H Present: Miss Lily Yip, PP of the Department of Justice, for H
HKSAR
I
Mr Tam Lai-shing Stephen, of Li, Chow & Company, I
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
defendant
J Offence: (1) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the J
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)
K K
(2) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
L --------------------- L
Reasons for Sentence
M M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two offences: one
of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director
O O
of Immigration, and the second offence of breach of a
P deportation order, both contrary to the Immigration Ordinance. P
Q 2. The defendant has admitted the facts of the case and I Q
have convicted him.
R R
3. The facts show that on 9 April 2014 the defendant was
S S
arrested by a police officer in Sham Shui Po. The defendant was
T unable to produce any proof of identity. He later admitted he T
had travelled by boat from Vietnam on 7 April, entering Hong
U U
CRT31/21.7.2014/ML 1 DCCC 484/2014/Sentence
V V
A Kong on 8 April by hiding under a truck. He admitted he was A
illegally in Hong Kong.
B B
4. It also was the case that the defendant was subject to
C C
a deportation order dated 11 March 2009. The defendant both
indicated later that he knew he could not come to Hong Kong, as
D D
he had previously signed the receipt on the deportation order.
E E
5. The defendant’s antecedents have been proved. He is no
F stranger to these offences. From 2008, he has been convicted on F
three previous occasions of remaining in Hong Kong without the
G G
authority of the Director of Immigration and two previous
occasions for breach of a deportation order.
H H
I
6. Most recently, in 2011, he was sentenced to 18 months I
for remaining in Hong Kong and 12 months for breach of a
J deportation order, 6 months of that being served consecutively J
to the first charge, giving a total of 24 months’ imprisonment.
K K
7. The defendant’s antecedent statement shows that he is
L L
39 years old, from Vietnam, educated to secondary level, last
discharge from Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre on 21
M M
November 2012. He is said to be single and a drug addict.
N N
8. In mitigation, it was said the defendant is from
O Haiphong in Vietnam, has a 72-year-old mother. He came to Hong O
Kong for economic reasons and is remorseful.
P P
9. I now turn to the appropriate sentence.
Q Q
R 10. In respect of the first charge (that is, remaining in R
Hong Kong), this is now the defendant’s fourth conviction for
S this offence. S
T T
U U
CRT31/21.7.2014/ML 2 DCCC 484/2014/Sentence
V V
A 11. The sentences for second and subsequent offences of A
this nature, after deduction for plea of guilty, can be in the
B range of 18 months and above. B
C C
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.
D D
E 13. On the second offence, sentences of up to 3 years’ E
imprisonment can be adopted as a starting point for a second or
F subsequent offence. F
G G
14. This is a third offence. I shall take a starting point
at 39 months’ imprisonment and I reduce that to 26 months’
H H
imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.
I I
15. It is clear from CACC 175/2012, HKSAR v Bui Van Khai,
J that these offences should be served concurrently. They should J
not be treated as separate and distinct.
K K
16. I shall adopt that position.
L L
17. Accordingly, the sentences will be served
M M
concurrently; will give a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.
N N
O O
P P
(T Casewell)
Q Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT31/21.7.2014/ML 3 DCCC 484/2014/Sentence
V V