THERE can be no doubt that takeaway owner Chi Hung Wong is a criminal.

Over a four-year period Mr Wong blatantly flouted immigration laws by employing up to three Malaysian men without work permits.

He put the men up in his house and, by Guernsey standards, paid them very poorly. Without them, it is clear, the business could not have functioned, yet he paid no tax on earnings.

As a lawbreaker, Mr Wong deserves to be punished. If immigration laws are not upheld then a black market in underpaid, off-the-radar staff will develop and law-abiding businesses will find themselves facing unfair competition.

Furthermore, the island simply does not have the space or job market to let anyone and everyone come to the island to work.

And without tax, our society cannot function.

While all of that is true, it is still difficult not to feel a glimmer of sympathy for Mr Wong. Foolish and criminal he may be, but the punishment imposed will almost certainly destroy the man and his young family.

A quarter of a million pound fine, the largest ever imposed by a local court, represents 40% of his turnover over that period. Even a businessman who works every hour available and does not drink, smoke or socialise is unlikely to be able to afford to pay that much in one hit.

So, he will sell his house, borrow from his family and seek to make amends.

There are those who will argue that that is how it should be. If you cannot do the time, don’t do the crime. The law has to be a deterrent to others.

But part of that law must also allow for rehabilitation. Which is why the courts will often suspend prison sentences on violent criminals and drug addicts.

Yet here an otherwise hard-working family man who is able to see the error of his ways may never be able to show that he has learnt from the experience.

If, as seems likely, the fine forces him, his wife and his children into destitution, has the legal process achieved the best end for Mr Wong and the community?

Or, put more simply, does the punishment fit the crime?