HKSAR v. ALI HAIDER

HCMA 287/2021

[2021] HKCFI 3679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 287 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 1263 OF 2021)

__________________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
and
	ALI HAIDER	Appellant

__________________________

Before: Hon Toh J in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 November 2021

Date of Judgment: 29 November 2021

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

1.  The Appellant was one of two Defendants charged with one count of “taking employment while being a person in respect of whom a removal order is in force”, contrary to section 38AA(1)(b) and 38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

2.  The facts are very simple. The Immigration officers conducted an operation at a shopping mall in Yuen Long, New Territories and saw the Appellant unloading some foam boxes from a truck and used a pallet to transport the boxes to the market nearby.  

3.  Upon investigation and interception, the Appellant was found to be a holder of an Immigration Recognizance Form.  A removal order had been served on him and he was not permitted to take up employment in Hong Kong.          

4.  The driver of the truck was interviewed, and said the Appellant was one of the delivery workers who had been working for about one year. 

5.  The Appellant was represented by a lawyer and in mitigation he said that the Appellant wanted to make some quick money to send to his hometown as his father was ill, and asked the Court to take into account the Appellant’s admission and remorse.

6.  The Court referred to the case of HKSAR v Usman Butt[1] where the Court said that a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment should be imposed upon a guilty plea for an offence of this nature. 

7.  The learned Magistrate was entirely correct following the sentencing authority of Usman Butt.  I cannot see that he had in any way committed any error in fact or in law in arriving at the sentence. 

8.  The sentence is not manifestly excessive and so the appeal is dismissed.        

(Esther Toh) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

Mr Anson Lai, PP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant acting in person