DCCC180/2016 HKSAR v. DANG THE CUONG (ALSO KNOWN AS DANG THE COONG) - LawHero
DCCC180/2016
HKSAR v. DANG THE CUONG (ALSO KNOWN AS DANG THE COONG)
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Kathie Cheung17/4/2016
DCCC180/2016
A A
B B
DCCC 180/2016
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 180 OF 2016 E
F F
------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
DANG THE CUONG
I (ALSO KNOWN AS DANG THE COONG) I
------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Kathie Cheung
K K
Date: 18 April 2016
L Present: Mr Vincent Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR L
Mr Chong Chung Hing Solomon of Solomon C Chong & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
O [2] Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the O
Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in
P P
Hong Kong (在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權
Q 而留在香港) Q
R R
--------------------------------------
S S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T
-------------------------------------- T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “Breach of B
deportation order”, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration
C C
Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the first charge) and one count of “Remaining in
D Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after D
having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong”, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of
E E
the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the second charge).
F F
Facts
G G
H 2. On 29 June 2015, a security guard of a container terminal H
found the defendant wandering around. Case was then reported. Upon
I I
inquiry, the defendant told the police officer that he entered Hong Kong
J illegally for seeking medical treatment and treatment for his drug J
addiction.
K K
L L
3. At the material time, the defendant had been subject to a
M
deportation order dated 25 September 2006. M
N N
4. In a subsequent interview under caution, the defendant
O admitted sneaking into Hong Kong illegally on 29 June 2015. He knew O
that he had breached the deportation order.
P P
Q Mitigation Q
R R
5. The defendant is aged 38. He is a Vietnamese, married with a
S son and a daughter. He has 7 previous conviction records, 3 relate to S
unlawful remaining in Hong Kong and 2 relate to breach of deportation
T T
order.
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 6. In mitigation, Mr Chong submitted that the defendant suffers B
from AIDS, lung and liver diseases. He borrowed around HK$10,000 in
C C
Vietnam for seeking medical treatment there. He was unable to repay the
D debt. His wife and his children left him. He therefore came to Hong Kong D
for seeking medical treatment and treatment for his drug addiction. Mr
E E
1
Chong referred to 3 cases regarding the range of sentences to be imposed
F and also submitted that the sentences for the two offences should run F
concurrently.
G G
H Sentence H
I I
7. The maximum sentence for the first charge is 7 years’
J imprisonment. For the second charge, the maximum sentence is a fine of J
HK$25,000 and 3 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, the offence of breach
K K
of deportation order is more serious than the offence of unlawful
L L
remaining.
M M
8. For the first charge, the usual starting point after trial is 27
N N
months’ imprisonment (see HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013). The
O sentence can be adjusted upward in case of a repeated offender. For the O
second to seventh commission of this offence, the starting point ranges
P P
from 36 to 42 months’ imprisonment (see HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC
Q 175/2012, HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, CACC 14/2011 and HKSAR v Ta Q
Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013).
R R
S S
1
HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC 175/2012, HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son also known as Bui Trong Khoai and
T Ngo Van Thanh (謝庭山), CACC 348/2013 and HKSAR Tran Viet Thanh, CACC 54/2011, HKSAR v T
Nguyen Thi Phu, CACC 221/2011 and HKSAR v Guan Cuizhen (關翠珍), HCMA 260/2011 (Heard
together)
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B 9. For the second charge, the usual sentence after plea for a first B
offender is 15 months’ imprisonment. Again, the sentence can be adjusted
C C
upward in case of a repeated offender. The starting point after trial can
D range from 27 to 30 months (see HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC 175/2012 D
HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, CACC 14/2011 and HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son,
E E
CACC 348/2013).
F F
10. Further, according to the Court of Appeal’s guideline, the
G G
sentences for the first charge and the second charge should run
H concurrently. H
I I
11. In respect of the first charge, since it is the defendant’s third
J J
conviction, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled
K to the usual one-third discount for his guilty plea. The sentence is therefore K
reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
L L
M 12. For the second charge, since it is the defendant’s fourth M
conviction, a starting point of 27 months is appropriate. The sentence is
N N
reduced to 18 months for the defendant’s guilty plea.
O O
13. Since the sentences for the two charges should run
P P
concurrently, the total sentence imposed on the defendant is 2 years’
Q imprisonment. Q
R R
S S
(Kathie Cheung)
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 180/2016
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 180 OF 2016 E
F F
------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
DANG THE CUONG
I (ALSO KNOWN AS DANG THE COONG) I
------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Kathie Cheung
K K
Date: 18 April 2016
L Present: Mr Vincent Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR L
Mr Chong Chung Hing Solomon of Solomon C Chong & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
O [2] Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the O
Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in
P P
Hong Kong (在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權
Q 而留在香港) Q
R R
--------------------------------------
S S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T
-------------------------------------- T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “Breach of B
deportation order”, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration
C C
Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the first charge) and one count of “Remaining in
D Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after D
having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong”, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of
E E
the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the second charge).
F F
Facts
G G
H 2. On 29 June 2015, a security guard of a container terminal H
found the defendant wandering around. Case was then reported. Upon
I I
inquiry, the defendant told the police officer that he entered Hong Kong
J illegally for seeking medical treatment and treatment for his drug J
addiction.
K K
L L
3. At the material time, the defendant had been subject to a
M
deportation order dated 25 September 2006. M
N N
4. In a subsequent interview under caution, the defendant
O admitted sneaking into Hong Kong illegally on 29 June 2015. He knew O
that he had breached the deportation order.
P P
Q Mitigation Q
R R
5. The defendant is aged 38. He is a Vietnamese, married with a
S son and a daughter. He has 7 previous conviction records, 3 relate to S
unlawful remaining in Hong Kong and 2 relate to breach of deportation
T T
order.
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 6. In mitigation, Mr Chong submitted that the defendant suffers B
from AIDS, lung and liver diseases. He borrowed around HK$10,000 in
C C
Vietnam for seeking medical treatment there. He was unable to repay the
D debt. His wife and his children left him. He therefore came to Hong Kong D
for seeking medical treatment and treatment for his drug addiction. Mr
E E
1
Chong referred to 3 cases regarding the range of sentences to be imposed
F and also submitted that the sentences for the two offences should run F
concurrently.
G G
H Sentence H
I I
7. The maximum sentence for the first charge is 7 years’
J imprisonment. For the second charge, the maximum sentence is a fine of J
HK$25,000 and 3 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, the offence of breach
K K
of deportation order is more serious than the offence of unlawful
L L
remaining.
M M
8. For the first charge, the usual starting point after trial is 27
N N
months’ imprisonment (see HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013). The
O sentence can be adjusted upward in case of a repeated offender. For the O
second to seventh commission of this offence, the starting point ranges
P P
from 36 to 42 months’ imprisonment (see HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC
Q 175/2012, HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, CACC 14/2011 and HKSAR v Ta Q
Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013).
R R
S S
1
HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC 175/2012, HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son also known as Bui Trong Khoai and
T Ngo Van Thanh (謝庭山), CACC 348/2013 and HKSAR Tran Viet Thanh, CACC 54/2011, HKSAR v T
Nguyen Thi Phu, CACC 221/2011 and HKSAR v Guan Cuizhen (關翠珍), HCMA 260/2011 (Heard
together)
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B 9. For the second charge, the usual sentence after plea for a first B
offender is 15 months’ imprisonment. Again, the sentence can be adjusted
C C
upward in case of a repeated offender. The starting point after trial can
D range from 27 to 30 months (see HKSAR v Bui Van Khai, CACC 175/2012 D
HKSAR v Pham Van Hung, CACC 14/2011 and HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son,
E E
CACC 348/2013).
F F
10. Further, according to the Court of Appeal’s guideline, the
G G
sentences for the first charge and the second charge should run
H concurrently. H
I I
11. In respect of the first charge, since it is the defendant’s third
J J
conviction, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled
K to the usual one-third discount for his guilty plea. The sentence is therefore K
reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
L L
M 12. For the second charge, since it is the defendant’s fourth M
conviction, a starting point of 27 months is appropriate. The sentence is
N N
reduced to 18 months for the defendant’s guilty plea.
O O
13. Since the sentences for the two charges should run
P P
concurrently, the total sentence imposed on the defendant is 2 years’
Q imprisonment. Q
R R
S S
(Kathie Cheung)
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V