Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taking employment while a removal order is in force

Legal area

Court

3 Jan 2025

HKSAR v. ISLAM, SHAHIDUL

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA383/2024

On rehearing the court accepted the prosecution witness's account, rejected the appellant's explanation as not credible, and concluded that the circumstantial facts (only person in the inner stall, handling and tying goods, stall in operation with goods displayed and lighting, absence of customers or sign of the claimed shop practice) made it the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the appellant was taking employment; therefore guilt under s.38AA was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was affirmed.
2 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. KUSTANTI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA340/2022

The appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal, made with counsel and an interpreter, and supported by the admitted amended brief facts which established the offence under s.38AA; none of the established grounds for rendering an unequivocal plea a nullity applied and the appellant's health issues did not vitiate the plea, therefore the conviction is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Jul 2022

HKSAR v. AAMIR NADEEM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA191/2022

The magistrate lawfully applied the sentencing guideline and properly exercised his discretion in refusing to deduct prior detention; the imposed sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, and there was no error warranting appellate interference, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
30 Jun 2022

HKSAR v. YADAV, DILIP PRASAD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA64/2022

The magistrate legitimately exercised his discretion by finding that the appellant's conduct (cooking in a staff‑only kitchen at lunchtime while wearing an apron) and failure to explain at investigation and trial objectively brought suspicion upon him, constituting a positive reason to refuse costs; the Court of First Instance found no error in that exercise and dismissed the appeal.
27 Apr 2022

HKSAR v. AHMAD BILAL

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA76/2019

The Magistrate wrongly inferred employment from delivery of cement to an ordinary residential building; the building was not an 'obvious place of employment' and the evidence did not exclude innocent explanations, therefore the conviction could not be sustained and was quashed.
18 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. AKHTAR, MUHAMMAD JAVED

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA474/2019

The Magistrate correctly applied the Usman Butt guideline to set the starting point for a trial conviction, and correctly refused to discount 90 days of unrelated administrative detention under section 67A(1A) CPO; no error of law or principle justified interference with the sentence, so the appeal is dismissed.
15 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. NANIK IRNAMAWATI

Citation

HKSAR v. NANIK IRNAMAWATI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA613/2015

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing magistrate properly applied the relevant sentencing guideline (HKSAR v Usman Butt) to impose 15 months' imprisonment and correctly found the appellant's prior periods of administrative detention were unrelated to the offence and therefore not deductible from the sentence.
22 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. SHABBIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SHABBIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA225/2015

The convictions were upheld because the magistrate permissibly accepted the credible prosecution evidence and properly drew an irresistible inference of employment from the appellants' conduct and circumstances; the magistrate's judicial notice regarding the Ramadan date was permissible and, in any event, did not affect the safety of the verdict.
7 Dec 2011

HKSAR v. HAMEED ABDUL

Citation

HKSAR v. HAMEED ABDUL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA704/2011

The Court upheld the conviction and affirmed the sentence of 20 months and 2 weeks imprisonment as appropriate under the sentencing guideline HKSAR v Usman Butt, having regard to the appellant's admitted knowledge of the prohibition, the existence of a removal order, his prior similar conviction, and credit for 47 days' detention; the appeal was dismissed.