A A
B B
DCCC 874/2015
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 874 OF 2015 E
F F
----------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
ENRIQUEZ Diosdado Jr. Medina
I (also known as SANCHEZ Rodolfo Suncal, I
DATOR Sanchez Danilo,
J J
RONALDO Aldava Sanchez,
K ANDICO Mario Camu, K
CARAVERAL Allan R,
L L
ALDAVA Sanchez Ronaldo,
M ALDAVA Ronaldo Sanchez and M
CASTRO Roberto Reyes)
N N
----------------
O O
P P
Before: Deputy District Judge Kathie Cheung
Q Date: 25 November 2015 Q
Present: Ms Ranee Khubchandani, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
R R
Mr MASSIE John William Ross of Massie & Clement,
S assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant S
Offence: Breach of deportation order（違反遞解離境令）
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B -------------------------------------- B
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
C C
--------------------------------------
D D
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Breach of
E E
deportation order”, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration
F Ordinance, Cap. 115. F
G G
Facts
H H
2. On 2 August 2015, the defendant presented himself for arrival
I I
clearance at the Hong Kong International Airport on the strength of a
J Philippines passport. Officers found him suspicious and referred him to J
secondary examination.
K K
L L
3. During secondary examination, the defendant denied
M
knowledge about other identities and insisted that he had only one set of M
identity. He further claimed that he had never been to Hong Kong before
N N
19 November 2014.
O O
4. Subsequent fingerprint check revealed that the defendant is
P P
the subject of a deportation order dated 11 June 1998 requiring him to
Q leave Hong Kong and prohibiting him from being in Hong Kong anytime Q
thereafter.
R R
S Mitigation S
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 5. The defendant is aged 63, born in Manila. He is a widower B
and he lived alone in Manila prior to the present offence. He has 11
C C
previous conviction records, 4 of them are for the same offence. His last
D conviction is in 2011, which is also for breach of deportation order. On D
that occasion, he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
E E
F 6. In mitigation, it was submitted that the approach adopted by F
the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Joned Asri aka Tri Wahyu, CACC
G G
345/2012, a case which was submitted by the prosecution, should not be
H adopted in the present case as the defendant of the present case is only H
convicted of one offence, not 5 offences in one go. It was submitted that
I I
the appropriate starting point should be between 24 and 30 months. As to
J why the defendant committed the offence, this court was told that the J
defendant was alone in Manila, he was invited by his friends in Hong Kong
K K
and he therefore came to Hong Kong. It was also submitted that given the
L L
defendant’s age, it was unlikely that he would re-offend again.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 7. In HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son aka Bui Trong Khoai and Ngo Van O
Thanh, CACC 348/2013, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that generally
P P
for a first offence of this nature, the starting point after trial is one of 27
Q months’ imprisonment. Of course, the starting point can be adjusted for Q
aggravating or mitigating factors. The case of HKSAR v Pham Van Hung,
R R
CACC 14/2011 was mentioned in the authority submitted by the
S prosecution. In that case, the appellant appealed against the sentence on a S
charge of “unlawful remaining” and a charge of “breach of deportation
T T
order”. That appellant had 4 previous convictions for breach of
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B deportation order. In that case, the Court of Appeal considered that the B
appropriate starting point for the offence of breach of deportation order
C C
was 42 months.
D D
8. In the present case, the defendant has 4 previous convictions
E E
for the same offence. The last conviction is in 2011. Apparently the
F previous sentences imposed on him did not deter him from committing F
further similar offence. This is also an aggravating factor which justifies
G G
enhancement of the starting point. Taking into consideration the judgment
H in Pham Van Hung, I consider the appropriate starting point should be 42 H
I
months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence, I
he is entitled to the usual 1/3 discount on guilty plea. The sentence is thus
J J
reduced to 28 months’ imprisonment. I hereby sentence the defendant to
K
28 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
M M
N N
O (Kathie Cheung) O
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V