DCCC501/2024 HKSAR v. HEMCHAIANAN PIMPISA (also known as THANATCHA HEMWICHIT, HEMWICHIT THANATCHA, NAMFON PHAKALONG, DARIN HEMWICHIT and PRAWG THIP HEMWIJIT) - LawHero
DCCC501/2024
區域法院（刑事）HH Judge Stanley Chan23/1/2025[2025] HKDC 290
DCCC501/2024
A DCCC 501/2024 A
[2025] HKDC 290
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 501 OF 2024
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Hemchaianan Pimpisa
F F
(also known as Thanatcha Hemwichit,
Hemwichit Thanatcha, Namfon Phakalong,
G Darin Hemwichit and Prawg Thip Hemwijit) G
H ---------------------- H
I
Before: HH Judge Stanley Chan I
Date: 24 January 2025
Present: Miss Liu King-fan Laura, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
J HKSAR J
Mr Edward Francis Lebreton Laskey, instructed by
Chaudhry Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the defendant
K Offence: (1) to (3) and (9) to (11) Breach of deportation order K
(違反遞解離境令)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N --------------------- N
O 1. The defendant was charged with a total of 11 counts of O
breach of deportation order, contrary to Section 43(1)(a) of the
P P
Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. Upon plea bargaining, the
defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 3 and 9 to 11, a total of
Q Q
six counts and was convicted accordingly. The remaining charges
R are left in court file. R
S Brief Facts S
2. On 12 October 2016, a deportation order under reference
T T
number SF(D) 15824 was issued against the defendant under the name
of Thanatcha Hemwichit (with other alias) requiring the defendant
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 1 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A to leave Hong Kong and prohibiting her from being in Hong Kong at A
any time thereafter. Defendant received a copy of the said
B deportation order on 24 October 2016 and acknowledged receipt B
thereof by appending her signature on the said order. The defendant
C C
was deported from Hong Kong to Thailand on 26 October 2016. The
said deportation order remains in force at all times.
D D
E E
3. On 11 December 2023, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong
via Heung Yuen Wai Control Point with a Thai passport under the
F F
name of Hemchaianan Pimpisa. Upon investigation, it was revealed
G that the defendant is a subject of deportation order for life. On G
19 December 2023, the defendant was arrested (the court asked and
H was told that the offence was discovered when the defendant went H
to the marriage registry and presented her current passport).
I I
4. Fingerprint comparisons confirmed that the defendant who
J J
was arrested on 19 December 2023 was the same person who used other
K names, against whom the deportation order of 12 October 2016 was K
issued.
L L
5. The defendant’s traffic movement records revealed that
M M
the defendant came to Hong Kong and was granted permission to land
on the strength of a Thai passport under the name of Hemchaianan
N N
Pimpisa on 6 occasions, namely, on 26 June 2017 (Charge 1); 21
O
June 2018 (Charge 2); 15 December 2022 (Charge 3); 12 November O
2023 (Charge 9); 27 November 2023 (Charge 10); and 11 December
P 2023 (Charge 11). P
Q Q
Mitigation
R 6. It was submitted that the defendant made a timely guilty R
plea for which she is entitled to have a one-third discount in
S S
sentence. That also shows the remorsefulness of the defendant,
even though the defendant was discovered to have entered Hong Kong
T T
on a total of 11 occasions.
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 2 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A 7. The defence submitted that the starting point for a first A
offender should be one of 27 months’ imprisonment. The starting
B point for each breach should then be increased but should not B
exceed 42 months: HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son [2014] 3 HKC 529 and HKSAR
C C
v Joned Asri CACC 345/2012. The defence asked for a more lenient
sentence.
D D
E 8. The defendant’s mitigation letter to which some photos E
are attached was tendered. Today, defence counsel said the
F defendant’s partner, Mr Woo, is present in court, and a mitigation F
letter for the defendant was presented.
G G
Sentence
H H
9. The maximum sentence for the offence is one of 7 years.
I
The defendant received the deportation order on 24 October 2016, I
and was deported back to Thailand on 26 October 2016. And
J surprisingly, under this computer age, the defendant managed to J
return to Hong Kong repeatedly, presumably, starting from 26 June
K 2017 (Charge 1). There seems to have no evidence to suggest that K
the defendant was using a false passport. Apparently, the
L L
defendant might just apply for another passport under different
names. In fact, the prosecution informed the court that the
M M
defendant changed her name in Thailand, and then applied for a new
N passport with the new name. The fact that the defendant committed N
similar offences repeatedly can be taken as a flagrant defiance of
O the law, and a deterrent sentence was called for. O
P P
10. The defendant is not a first offender as starting from
October 1996, she had a total of 9 convictions with 3 similar. In
Q Q
the present case, the defendant was facing a total of 6
R convictions. The Court of Appeal has said that the ultimate R
sentence, after enhancement, must be proportionate to the
S seriousness of the offence, reserving the maximum penalty for worst S
cases of its kind: paragraph 16 of the judgement of Joned Asri.
T T
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 3 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A 11. The mitigation letters from the defendant and Mr Woo A
have no substantial mitigating effect. If Mr Woo has been
B acquainted with the defendant for more than a decade, he should B
have known some, if not all, of the defendant’s background. Mr Woo
C C
said the defendant expressed genuine remorse and he is confident
the defendant will learn from this experience and become an even
D D
better person moving forward. The irony is that the defendant had
E 9 previous convictions and 3 similar. She had committed similar E
offences on 11 occasions even though she pleaded guilty to 6.
F F
G 12. In any event, the defendant can get one-third discount G
in sentence due to her pleas. I would take a simplistic approach
H in sentencing. I adopt a starting point of 39 months for each of H
these 6 offences, and with the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced
I I
to 26 months. All sentences are to be served concurrently.
J J
13. In passing, it is surprising to see that a person
K K
convicted of breach of a deportation order can easily circumvent
the effect of the deportation and prohibition by simply changing
L L
her name. For some reasons unknown, that person can easily change
M her name and apply for a new passport in her homeland. Like other M
countries, say Japan, visitors are required to provide their
N fingerprints of at least 2 fingers. I am sure that can drastically N
reduce the chance of this kind of repeated breach of deportation
O O
order. I also expect authorities in Hong Kong will duly inform
their counterparts in Thailand about the defendant’s repeated
P P
change of her name and the application for a different passport.
Q There must be something fishy. Q
R R
S S
Stanley Chan
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 4 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
HKSAR v. HEMCHAIANAN PIMPISA (also known as THANATCHA HEMWICHIT, HEMWICHIT THANATCHA, NAMFON PHAKALONG, DARIN HEMWICHIT and PRAWG THIP HEMWIJIT)
A DCCC 501/2024 A
[2025] HKDC 290
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 501 OF 2024
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Hemchaianan Pimpisa
F F
(also known as Thanatcha Hemwichit,
Hemwichit Thanatcha, Namfon Phakalong,
G Darin Hemwichit and Prawg Thip Hemwijit) G
H ---------------------- H
I
Before: HH Judge Stanley Chan I
Date: 24 January 2025
Present: Miss Liu King-fan Laura, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
J HKSAR J
Mr Edward Francis Lebreton Laskey, instructed by
Chaudhry Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the defendant
K Offence: (1) to (3) and (9) to (11) Breach of deportation order K
(違反遞解離境令)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N --------------------- N
O 1. The defendant was charged with a total of 11 counts of O
breach of deportation order, contrary to Section 43(1)(a) of the
P P
Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. Upon plea bargaining, the
defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 3 and 9 to 11, a total of
Q Q
six counts and was convicted accordingly. The remaining charges
R are left in court file. R
S Brief Facts S
2. On 12 October 2016, a deportation order under reference
T T
number SF(D) 15824 was issued against the defendant under the name
of Thanatcha Hemwichit (with other alias) requiring the defendant
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 1 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A to leave Hong Kong and prohibiting her from being in Hong Kong at A
any time thereafter. Defendant received a copy of the said
B deportation order on 24 October 2016 and acknowledged receipt B
thereof by appending her signature on the said order. The defendant
C C
was deported from Hong Kong to Thailand on 26 October 2016. The
said deportation order remains in force at all times.
D D
E E
3. On 11 December 2023, the defendant arrived in Hong Kong
via Heung Yuen Wai Control Point with a Thai passport under the
F F
name of Hemchaianan Pimpisa. Upon investigation, it was revealed
G that the defendant is a subject of deportation order for life. On G
19 December 2023, the defendant was arrested (the court asked and
H was told that the offence was discovered when the defendant went H
to the marriage registry and presented her current passport).
I I
4. Fingerprint comparisons confirmed that the defendant who
J J
was arrested on 19 December 2023 was the same person who used other
K names, against whom the deportation order of 12 October 2016 was K
issued.
L L
5. The defendant’s traffic movement records revealed that
M M
the defendant came to Hong Kong and was granted permission to land
on the strength of a Thai passport under the name of Hemchaianan
N N
Pimpisa on 6 occasions, namely, on 26 June 2017 (Charge 1); 21
O
June 2018 (Charge 2); 15 December 2022 (Charge 3); 12 November O
2023 (Charge 9); 27 November 2023 (Charge 10); and 11 December
P 2023 (Charge 11). P
Q Q
Mitigation
R 6. It was submitted that the defendant made a timely guilty R
plea for which she is entitled to have a one-third discount in
S S
sentence. That also shows the remorsefulness of the defendant,
even though the defendant was discovered to have entered Hong Kong
T T
on a total of 11 occasions.
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 2 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A 7. The defence submitted that the starting point for a first A
offender should be one of 27 months’ imprisonment. The starting
B point for each breach should then be increased but should not B
exceed 42 months: HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son [2014] 3 HKC 529 and HKSAR
C C
v Joned Asri CACC 345/2012. The defence asked for a more lenient
sentence.
D D
E 8. The defendant’s mitigation letter to which some photos E
are attached was tendered. Today, defence counsel said the
F defendant’s partner, Mr Woo, is present in court, and a mitigation F
letter for the defendant was presented.
G G
Sentence
H H
9. The maximum sentence for the offence is one of 7 years.
I
The defendant received the deportation order on 24 October 2016, I
and was deported back to Thailand on 26 October 2016. And
J surprisingly, under this computer age, the defendant managed to J
return to Hong Kong repeatedly, presumably, starting from 26 June
K 2017 (Charge 1). There seems to have no evidence to suggest that K
the defendant was using a false passport. Apparently, the
L L
defendant might just apply for another passport under different
names. In fact, the prosecution informed the court that the
M M
defendant changed her name in Thailand, and then applied for a new
N passport with the new name. The fact that the defendant committed N
similar offences repeatedly can be taken as a flagrant defiance of
O the law, and a deterrent sentence was called for. O
P P
10. The defendant is not a first offender as starting from
October 1996, she had a total of 9 convictions with 3 similar. In
Q Q
the present case, the defendant was facing a total of 6
R convictions. The Court of Appeal has said that the ultimate R
sentence, after enhancement, must be proportionate to the
S seriousness of the offence, reserving the maximum penalty for worst S
cases of its kind: paragraph 16 of the judgement of Joned Asri.
T T
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 3 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A 11. The mitigation letters from the defendant and Mr Woo A
have no substantial mitigating effect. If Mr Woo has been
B acquainted with the defendant for more than a decade, he should B
have known some, if not all, of the defendant’s background. Mr Woo
C C
said the defendant expressed genuine remorse and he is confident
the defendant will learn from this experience and become an even
D D
better person moving forward. The irony is that the defendant had
E 9 previous convictions and 3 similar. She had committed similar E
offences on 11 occasions even though she pleaded guilty to 6.
F F
G 12. In any event, the defendant can get one-third discount G
in sentence due to her pleas. I would take a simplistic approach
H in sentencing. I adopt a starting point of 39 months for each of H
these 6 offences, and with the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced
I I
to 26 months. All sentences are to be served concurrently.
J J
13. In passing, it is surprising to see that a person
K K
convicted of breach of a deportation order can easily circumvent
the effect of the deportation and prohibition by simply changing
L L
her name. For some reasons unknown, that person can easily change
M her name and apply for a new passport in her homeland. Like other M
countries, say Japan, visitors are required to provide their
N fingerprints of at least 2 fingers. I am sure that can drastically N
reduce the chance of this kind of repeated breach of deportation
O O
order. I also expect authorities in Hong Kong will duly inform
their counterparts in Thailand about the defendant’s repeated
P P
change of her name and the application for a different passport.
Q There must be something fishy. Q
R R
S S
Stanley Chan
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT32/24.1.2025/KJYM 4 DCCC 501/2024(1)/Sentence
V V