THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KWOK-HOI AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KWOK-HOI AND OTHERS

Because the appellants were motivated by a sudden natural disaster and could reasonably have relied on a long‑standing, well‑publicized practice of repatriation such that a subsequent unannounced policy change to prosecute constituted a relevant mitigating factor, the 15‑month sentences were excessive and must be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG KWOK-HOI AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellants: Cheung Kwok-hoi and 14 others; Respondent (crown): The Queen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 1988
Case Number
HCMA794/1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) Immigration Offence / Appellate Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; original sentences quashed and substituted.
Legal Topics
Attempting to Land Without Permission, Change of Executive Policy, Mitigation for Reliance on Established Practice, Repatriation Vs Prosecution
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Immigration Law Sentencing Attempting to Land Without Permission Change of Executive Policy Mitigation for Reliance on Established Practice Repatriation Vs Prosecution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Kwok-hoi and 14 others

Appellants

The Queen

Respondent (crown)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) Immigration Offence / Appellate Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 15‑month sentences were excessive
  2. 2 Whether an unannounced change in executive policy and prior practice of repatriation may be mitigation in sentencing
  3. 3 Appropriate reduction in sentence given motivation by natural disaster

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants were motivated by a sudden natural disaster and could reasonably have relied on a long‑standing, well‑publicized practice of repatriation such that a subsequent unannounced policy change to prosecute constituted a relevant mitigating factor, the 15‑month sentences were excessive and must be reduced to 6 months imprisonment each.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; original sentences quashed and substituted.

Orders

  • Quash each sentence of 15 months' imprisonment and substitute a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for each appellant.