Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlawful employment

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2022

BANG ASAN MAGDALENA BOWAKEN v. HKSAR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA197/2022

The appeal was allowed in part because, although the magistrate was entitled to have regard to the 15-month guideline applicable to s38AA offences, the magistrate had not been put on proper mitigation particulars showing exceptional personal and COVID-related circumstances; having considered those circumstances the court exercised discretion and mercy and reduced the sentence from 15 months to 8 months imprisonment.
20 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. BALJIT SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1304
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC17/2018

Leave to appeal against sentence out of time was granted and an expedited hearing ordered because the applicant had provided substantive assistance to the authorities leading to arrests and prosecutions, the respondent conceded the assistance and that a further reduction was merited, and the issue should therefore be heard on appeal promptly.
22 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. SALAH, MOHAMMED ABU

Citation

HKSAR v. SALAH, MOHAMMED ABU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA659/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate lawfully found PW1's identification evidence reliable and that it gave rise to the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the appellant was selling T-shirts and had established a business in breach of s38AA; exclusion of the interview did not prevent proof beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence was appropriate and consistent with the Usman Butt tariff.
11 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON

Citation

HKSAR v. AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA612/2015

The Magistrate correctly refused to reduce the sentence under s.67A(1A) because the offence of taking employment unlawfully was unrelated to the prior administrative detention which was not immediately prior to first appearance, and the appellate court agreed that no discretion to deduct the 46 days should be exercised; the appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.
4 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. WINDA AGUSTIN

Citation

HKSAR v. WINDA AGUSTIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA601/2015

The appeal was dismissed because the 15-month sentence was in accordance with established sentencing guidelines, not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the magistrate properly ordered concurrent sentences after considering the appellant's antecedents; the appellant presented no substantiated grounds to justify reducing the sentence.
20 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. ALI LIAQAT

Citation

HKSAR v. ALI LIAQAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA759/2011

The Magistrate correctly applied the precedent in HKSAR v Usman Butt & Another to adopt an appropriate starting point, properly allowed the limited deduction for 10 days administrative detention, and there were no exceptional circumstances (including medical complaints) warranting interference; therefore the sentence of 22 months imprisonment is not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and is upheld.
12 Jan 2011

ABU BAKKR SHIDDIK v. M M & CO AUTO PARTS, DISMANTLING AND GENERAL (A FIRM)

Citation

ABU BAKKR SHIDDIK v. M M & CO AUTO PARTS, DISMANTLING AND GENERAL (A FIRM)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC903/2009

Although the claimant was not lawfully employable and the employment was unlawful under the Immigration Ordinance, the court exercised its discretion under section 2(2) ECO in favour of the claimant because he was employed to carry out lawful work, the employer was responsible and policy considerations supported recovery; claimant awarded 31.5% loss of earning capacity resulting in HK$120,960. The court refused an award under section 10 because the claimant was not lawfully employable during the period of temporary incapacity and therefore not capable of earning in suitable employment.
11 Feb 2009

HKSAR v. OUYANG, MING

Citation

HKSAR v. OUYANG, MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA834/2008

The sentencing court correctly applied the precedent in HKSAR v. Li Chang Li and found no exceptional circumstances in the appellant's mitigation to justify departing from the 15-month custodial sentence; therefore the appeal fails and the sentence is upheld.
16 May 2007

HKSAR v. CHEN WUCHANG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEN WUCHANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA251/2007

The magistrate's sentencing exercise was within the permissible range, appropriately followed precedent (HKSAR v Lai Kon Fai), allowed reduction for the guilty plea, properly applied the totality principle to arrive at a composite sentence of 18 months, and therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
5 Mar 1997

R. v. MARIASUSAI ANDREWS

Citation

R. v. MARIASUSAI ANDREWS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC545/1996

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found no error in the trial judge's factual findings or credibility assessments; the judge lawfully concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and the convictions and concurrent two year sentences were therefore upheld.