HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, SHEHZAD

HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, SHEHZAD

The Court held the magistrate did not err: the sentences on each count were within established tariffs, the magistrate properly accounted for the appellant's repeated breaches and the need for deterrence, and applied the totality principle appropriately by partly concurrent and partly consecutive terms; therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD, SHEHZAD
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: MOHAMMAD, SHEHZAD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 December 2007
Case Number
HCMA793/2007
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Remaining Without Authority, Breach of Deportation Order, Sentencing Guidelines, Recidivism, Totality Principle, Deterrence
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Criminal Law Sentencing Remaining Without Authority Breach of Deportation Order Sentencing Guidelines Recidivism Totality Principle +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

MOHAMMAD, SHEHZAD

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the aggregate sentence was excessive
  2. 2 Proper sentencing for unlawful remaining and breach of deportation order given prior convictions
  3. 3 Application of totality principle and deterrence in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the magistrate did not err: the sentences on each count were within established tariffs, the magistrate properly accounted for the appellant's repeated breaches and the need for deterrence, and applied the totality principle appropriately by partly concurrent and partly consecutive terms; therefore the aggregate sentence of 28 months was not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentences affirmed: 18 months imprisonment on Charge 1 (s.38(1)(b) Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115); 20 months imprisonment on Charge 2 (s.43(1)(a) Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115) with 10 months of the Charge 2 sentence ordered to run concurrently with Charge 1, resulting in a total effective sentence of 28 months...