5 Mar 2020
Remand time already credited to an earlier sentence cannot be credited a second time; remand credit is for the CSD to apply and is not deducted by the court when imposing a later unrelated sentence; the magistrate's imposition of 14 months for unlawful remaining was within her sentencing discretion and not excessive, so the appeal fails.
27 Feb 2013
The Court held the two offences shared the same underlying criminality and the learned judge failed to consider that when ordering substantial consecutiveness; accordingly the sentences for the two offences should run concurrently producing an overall sentence of two years for those offences, with the previously activated 9 months of suspended sentence to run consecutively yielding a final total of 2 years 9 months.
8 Feb 2012
The court held that the magistrate correctly followed the standard guideline sentence of 15 months for unlawful remaining, appropriately reduced it to 13 months for time spent in immigration custody, and there was no sufficient justification to depart from the guideline; therefore the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
20 Jan 2012
The Court affirmed that the established 15‑month tariff applies to illegal entrants found in possession of forged identity cards and to unlawfully remaining offences; prior unlawful entries or convictions justify enhancement (commonly to 18 months), forged‑ID and unlawfully‑remaining sentences should normally run concurrently absent exceptional features, and appellate review under s83I(2) permits adjustment of all sentences in the proceedings. Applying those principles the Court varied the sentences for the three appellants to totals of 25, 22 and 18 months respectively.
12 Aug 2011
The Court held that appropriate starting points were 30 months for unlawful remaining and 42 months for breach of Deportation Order, each reduced by one-third for the guilty plea (to 20 and 28 months respectively), and that having regard to Pham Van Tuan the sentences should run concurrently, producing a total sentence of 28 months; the District Judge's consecutive arrangement was set aside.
18 Feb 2011
The Court allowed the appeal in part because the total sentence of 36 months was manifestly excessive under the totality principle: the two immigration offences shared the same underlying criminality (the appellant's unlawful presence) so imposing largely consecutive sentences was inappropriate; accordingly the sentence on breach of deportation order was reduced to 3 months consecutive to 20 months for unlawful remaining (total 23 months for immigration offences) and the 6-month drug sentence was ordered consecutive, producing an aggregate sentence of 29 months.
13 Oct 2010
The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering mitigation; the sentence of 15 months imprisonment and activation of the 4-week suspended sentence were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, so the appellate court will not disturb them.
22 Sept 2010
The appeal is dismissed because the medical evidence was insufficient to warrant mitigation and any suggestion of leniency by a previous magistrate was withdrawn and did not bind the sentencing judge, so the original sentence was not excessive.
18 Feb 2010
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that his guilty pleas were a nullity; the pleas were taken in Putonghua with an experienced solicitor confirming the pleas and facts, and the appellant's assertions (nervousness, denial, partial admission, lack of recollection, unwillingness to be punished) were insufficient to invalidate the pleas.
9 Oct 2009
Sentences were appropriate and not manifestly excessive because the magistrate correctly applied sentencing principles: theft justified by starting point for sophisticated, large-scale shoplifting reduced for guilty plea to 6 months concurrent; unlawful remaining warranted 18 months due to prior similar conviction and authority in R v So Man King; breach of deportation order appropriately sentenced to 15 months concurrent with the unlawful remaining term and ordered consecutive to theft, producing a lawful aggregate term of 24 months imprisonment.