HKSAR v. NAEEM, ULLAH-KHAN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. NAEEM, ULLAH-KHAN
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 2 March 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Sentence Appeal Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA1136/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 2 March 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Sentence Appeal Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA1136/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The evidence did not establish exceptional humanitarian suffering; the appellant's prior breach of a deportation order and the loss of illegal income do not support mitigation, and the appellant's medical conditions were insufficient to affect otherwise correct standard sentences, therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the sentences are upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences totaling 21 months' imprisonment upheld
- 15 months for remaining in Hong Kong without authority; 12 months for breach of a deportation order, with 6 months of the latter ordered to run consecutively to the former
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Derek Lai, Senior Government Counsel, Department of JusticeNaeem, Ullah-khan
AppellantAmounts and remedies
- Total Imprisonment Months: 21
- Sentence Remaining Without Authority Months: 15
- Sentence Breach Deportation Order Months: 12
- Consecutive Months: 6
03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Sentence Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether exceptional humanitarian suffering existed to justify reduction of sentence
- 02
Whether the appellant's medical conditions justify mitigation
- 03
Whether prior conviction for breach of deportation order aggravates sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant sought reduction of sentence on basis of exceptional humanitarian suffering supported by three letters alleging his elderly, ill father in Pakistan is severely depressed and requires a regular attendant; appellant also claimed he suffers from epilepsy and asthma.
- Respondent
- Respondent opposed reduction, submitted sentences are standard for these offences, pointed to appellant's prior conviction for breaching a deportation order in 2004, and argued loss of illegal income and appellant's health do not amount to exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
High Court judgment (this case)
Exceptional humanitarian circumstances are required to justify reduction of immigration-related sentences.
- 02
High Court judgment (this case)
Recidivism is an aggravating factor in sentencing for deportation and immigration offences.
- 03
High Court judgment (this case)
Illness of the offender does not automatically warrant sentence reduction absent clear, exceptional humanitarian impact.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The evidence did not establish exceptional humanitarian suffering; the appellant's prior breach of a deportation order and the loss of illegal income do not support mitigation, and the appellant's medical conditions were insufficient to affect otherwise correct standard sentences, therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed and the sentences are upheld.
Obiter and limits
- Sentences imposed were described as standard for these crimes.
- Letters produced were insufficient in particularity and corroboration to establish exceptional humanitarian grounds.
- The appellant previously travelled to Hong Kong leaving his father behind which undermined the claimed humanitarian impact of current detention.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Sentences totaling 21 months' imprisonment upheld
- 15 months for remaining in Hong Kong without authority; 12 months for breach of a deportation order, with 6 months of the latter ordered to run consecutively to the former
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 2 March 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 2 March 2007
bjbj HCMA1136/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1136 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 6446/2006) _____
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and Naeem, Ullah-khan Appellant _____ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Dates of Hearing: 2 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 2 March 2007 ____
J U D G M E N T ____ 1. This is an appeal against sentences totalling 21 months' imprisonment. The appellant received a sentence of 15 months for remaining in Hong Kong without authority and 12 months for being in breach of a deportation order, 6 months of the latter being ordered to run consecutively to the first sentence. The sentences are standard ones for these crimes.
2. The appellant, who appears in person, seeks a reduction in the sentences on the basis of exceptional humanitarian suffering. In support of that, he produces three letters, one from someone saying he is the President of the Human Rights and Welfare Council in Chiniot in Pakistan, one from his father, and one from a consultant surgeon. The burden of the three letters is that this appellant was the support of the 65-year-old father who is ill with asthma and who has suffered a severe attack of mental depression because of the news of his son's detention here in Hong Kong. It is said, and I quote from the consultant surgeon's letter, that because of that mental depression, he is in a critical position. And then the next sentence reads, "He desperately needs a regular attendant." 3. I regret to say that the material before me cannot support a claim of exceptional humanitarian suffering. This is the second time the appellant has been convicted of breaching a deportation order, the previous conviction being in early 2004 and he was prepared to come to Hong Kong and leave his father behind in Pakistan. The only possible difference his arrest and conviction make on that scenario is that the money he would have earned by working here illegally will have dried up. The loss of that illegitimate source of income cannot be the support of a claim for exceptional humanitarian suffering.
4. The only other thing that the appellant sought to put before me is that he suffers from epilepsy and asthma himself. That cannot affect these otherwise perfectly correct sentences. Accordingly, the appeal against them is dismissed. (P Line) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Derek Lai, Senior Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant Naeem Ullah-khan, in person
PAGE -
PAGE CRT33/2.3.2007/MMcG HCMA1136/2006/Reasons for Judgment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ &`#$ JUDGE.DOT setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.