Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Repatriation policy

  • 20 Jan 1997

    CHIENG A LAC AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHIENG A LAC AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3961/1996

    Hearsay in habeas corpus is not automatically inadmissible; where it is impracticable to produce primary evidence (because of passage of time or need to obtain evidence overseas), hearsay may be admitted and its reliability assessed by weight. However, evidence conveyed via interpreters must be treated as second‑hand hearsay and is admissible only if impracticable to obtain the primary evidence. Statements of opinion by a witness based on hearsay are not admissible as expert opinion under s.58(1). The court ruled specific passages and exhibits admissible or inadmissible accordingly.

  • 28 Dec 1990

    THE QUEEN v. TSE WING KWAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TSE WING KWAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA835/1990

    The Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence permitting immediate release because, on the facts, leniency was justified by the appellant's claimed first entry or mistaken expectation of repatriation, delay in listing the appeal and the short period remaining to be served assuming remission.

  • 10 Aug 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN SHU SANG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN SHU SANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA494/1988

    The Court confirmed that 15 months' imprisonment is the appropriate baseline guideline for most offences under s38(1) but held that where executive policy and practice had reasonably led first‑time offenders to expect non‑enforcement, that fact is a proper mitigating factor permitting significant reduction of sentence; repeat offenders with recent convictions receive no mitigation and higher sentences are upheld.

  • 10 Aug 1988

    THE QUEEN v. NG SEE KING

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. NG SEE KING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA557/1988

    The Court confirmed 15 months' imprisonment as the appropriate baseline guideline for most s38(1) offences to achieve deterrence but held that where executive conduct has created a justifiable expectation of non‑enforcement and appellants are first‑time offenders unexpectedly charged, that circumstance may substantially mitigate sentence; accordingly eight appellants' sentences were reduced to six months while the appellant with repeated prior illegal entries had an 18‑month sentence upheld.

  • 10 Aug 1988

    THE QUEEN v. KONG WAI PAI

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. KONG WAI PAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA536/1988

    The Court affirmed that a 15‑month custodial sentence is the appropriate starting guideline for most offences under s38(1) Immigration Ordinance; mitigation is available for guilty pleas, voluntary surrender and strong humanitarian factors, and prior executive non‑enforcement may properly reduce sentence; previous unlawful entries and use of forged identity documents are aggravating. Applying these principles the Court dismissed the appeal of the repeat offender and reduced sentences of first‑time offenders to six months.

  • 10 Aug 1988

    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHU YU SUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA507/1988

    For offences under s.38(1) Immigration Ordinance the appropriate starting guideline for sentencing is 15 months' imprisonment in ordinary cases to achieve deterrence; however, mitigation is proper where the executive's prolonged non‑enforcement conduct reasonably induced reliance, and first offenders apprehended after a sudden policy change may have sentences substantially reduced accordingly.

  • 10 Aug 1988

    THE QUEEN v. TAM KIT CHEONG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TAM KIT CHEONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA534/1988

    The Court confirmed that a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment should remain the basic guideline for most offences under s.38(1) to achieve deterrence, but where the executive's long‑standing policy of non‑enforcement has justifiably lulled individuals into a belief they would not be prosecuted, that conduct is a legitimate mitigating factor warranting substantial reduction; applied to the facts, eight first‑time appellants' 15‑month sentences were varied to 6 months, while a repeat offender's 18‑month sentence was upheld.

  • 7 Apr 1983

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAH-YING

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAH-YING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC294/1983

    For a person who returns to Hong Kong after illegal entry and repatriation, a custodial sentence of fifteen months is not manifestly excessive; deterrence and statutory context justify such a sentence and the Magistrate's allowance of three months' discount for age was unduly lenient, so the appeal is dismissed and the sentence upheld.