HKSAR v. DING QIJING

CACC 75/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1168 OF 2013)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Lunn VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment imposed on him, on his conviction on his plea of guilty, by District Judge A. Kwok on 26 February 2014 for an offence on 7 November 2013 of being the captain of a ship with persons on board seeking to land unlawfully in Hong Kong, contrary to section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (“the Ordinance”) (Charge 1).[1] Also, the applicant was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment on his conviction on his plea of guilty for an offence of endangering the safety of others at sea, contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance, Cap. 313 (Charge 3). The judge ordered two months of the latter sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in respect of Charge 1. Accordingly, the total sentence imposed on the applicant was 44 months’ imprisonment. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge 1 only.

The charges

2. By Charge 1, it was alleged that on 7 November 2013 in Hong Kong waters the applicant, being the captain of a motorised sampan, had on board the sampan seven Pakistani males seeking to land from the sampan in contravention of section 39(1) of the Ordinance, Cap. 115.  In the alternative to Charge 1, it was alleged by Charge 2 that the applicant aided and abetted the seven Pakistanis on board his sampan to attempt to land in Hong Kong without permission, contrary to section 38(1)(a) of the Ordinance.[2]  By Charge 3, it was alleged that on the same occasion, contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance, the applicant being the coxswain of the sampan which was underway, without reasonable excuse endangered or caused to be endangered the safety of the seven Pakistani males by navigating the sampan which was unseaworthy in that :

(i) the main hull structure of the vessel was in un-acceptable condition, due to the removal of the bottom buoyancy chamber;

(ii) there was no fire fighting appliance on board;

(iii) there were no life jackets on board; and

(iv) there were no navigation lights fitted on board.

The Facts

3. At about 02:01 am on 7 November 2013, the sampan was observed on Marine Police radar outside Hong Kong’s territorial waters.  A few minutes later, the sampan entered Hong Kong waters, sailing towards Lung Kwu Tan.  It was not illuminated or displaying any navigation lights.  A Marine Police intercepted the sampan and found seven Pakistani males squatting in the sampan, which the applicant was manoeuvring at the stern.  The photographs show that the sampan was an open, blue-coloured vessel with an outboard motor of the kind frequently seen plying the waters of Hong Kong.

4. Having been arrested and cautioned, the applicant said “I brought them to come and play, and I am not receiving any money.”  In a subsequent video recorded interview, he said that he did not know any of the other men on board the sampan.  He said that he had steered the sampan from Xi Xiang in Shenzhen at the request of a stranger.  He did not know if there were any navigation lights or life-saving equipment on board. 

5. The applicant and the Pakistani males were refused permission to land in Hong Kong by the Immigration Department.

6. A Ship Inspector of the Marine Department examined the sampan and found that it was in the conditions described in the Particulars of Offence of Charge 3.  In particular, the watertight integrity and general condition were poor.

Reasons for sentence

7. In his Reasons for Sentence, the judge noted that the applicant was a 38-year-old resident of the Mainland who had no criminal convictions in Hong Kong.  He said that in mitigation it had been submitted that the applicant, together with his wife and daughter, were HIV positive and that he had committed the offences in order to earn a living.[3]  Further, he acknowledged the validity of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, namely not only was there no children or old people on board the sampan, but also the applicant had not attempted any dangerous manoeuvre of the sampan to avoid interception by the police.[4]

8. The judge then noted that the provisions of section 37 of the Immigration Ordinance were not applicable, as the persons on board the sampan were people from South Asia and as not encompassed within the definition of “illegal (sic) entrants” under the section.[5]

9. Having noted that the maximum sentence of imprisonment for offences contrary to sections 37C [6] and 37D [7] of Cap. 115 was 14 years, whereas the maximum sentence of imprisonment for offences contrary to section 39 (Charge 3) was seven years, the judge said :[8]

“ I note that in Charge 1, the prosecution has seen fit to charge the defendant as the captain of a motorised sampan, under section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance (“the ordinance”). Section 37 of the ordinance is not applicable as the persons on board of the sampan were people from South Asia and as such, they are therefore not caught within the definition of “illegal entrants” under section 37. [9]

Previously, in relation to persons on board a motorized vehicle, when they were not illegal entrants as defined in section 37, the prosecution had charged the person in charge of the vessel under section 38 of the Ordinance for “Attempting to land in Hong Kong without permission.” However, it is undesirable as in that particular section under section 38, the maximum sentence is only one of 3 years.

In the past, the court had on numerous occasions expressed concern over the fact that different defendants carrying different categories of people were treated differently under different sections of the Ordinance albeit that the criminality are basically and generally the same. The discrepancy of the treatment and as a result the sentences in relation to the defendant in these categories are to a large extent now remedied by the prosecution’s decision to choose instead to charge the defendant under section 39 of the Ordinance.

It should be noted that in a number of authorities, the Court of Appeal had already decided that an appropriate starting point for an accused who was in charge of a vessel carrying unlawful entrants to Hong Kong is 5 years under section 37C or 37D of the Ordinance.  Although as I have pointed out, under section 37 and under 39 there is still a difference between the prescribed maximum imprisonment term, one of 14 and one of 7 years, I judge that the criminality involved in these two sections, being emphasis on the role of the defendant as the person in charge of the vessel, are in fact exactly the same.  In the end, I come to the conclusion that I see there is no logic or reason why I shall not follow the Court of Appeals’ usual sentencing guideline or practice insofar as section 37 offence is concerned when I come to deal with a similar section 39 offence.”  [Italics added.]

Starting point

10. The judge said that, having regard to the judgments of this court in HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [10] and HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing [11], he added three months’ imprisonment to the starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment that he took for Charge 1, for the “aggravating feature” that there was no fire-fighting and life saving equipment on board the sampan, resulting in a sentence of 63 months’ imprisonment.[12]

11. In respect of Charge 3, the judge said that having regard to the judgment of the court in HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan, he adopted the starting point for sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

Discount

12. Affording the applicant a discount of one-third from the starting point for his pleas of guilty, the judge sentenced him to 42 months’ imprisonment in respect of Charge 1, and 8 months’ imprisonment in respect of Charge 3. 

13. Having then considered the principle of totality, the judge ordered two months of the sentence of Charge 3 to be served consecutively to that of Charge 1.  Accordingly, the applicant was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.

Grounds of appeal against sentence

14. Of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant in respect of Charge 1, Mr Benjami Chain submitted that, having correctly acknowledged that the persons on board the sampan were not “unauthorized entrants”, in respect of whom the maximum sentence for an offence contrary to sections 37C and 37D is 14 years’ imprisonment, and that the maximum sentence for an offence contrary to section 39 is 7 years’ imprisonment, nevertheless the judge proceeded to sentence the applicant as if he was guilty of an offence under sections 37C and 37D.  He erred in stating that he did so on the basis that the criminality involved in conduct which constitutes the offences contrary to sections 37C and 37D is the same as the conduct which constitutes an offence contrary to section 39.  In doing so, the judge erred in principle and ignored or paid no or no sufficient regard to the legislative intent, it being clear that the legislature intended that offences involving “unauthorized entrants” were more serious.

15. In his oral submissions, in response to an enquiry of the court, Mr Chain said that he did not suggest the judge ought to have approached sentencing the applicant in respect of Charge 1 on the same basis as if the charge had been brought under section 38 of the Ordinance, for which the maximum sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment.

The submissions of the respondent

16. In her submissions on behalf of the respondent, Ms Jasmine Ching informed the court that the fact that the applicant was charged with an offence contrary to section 39 of the Ordinance, rather than with an offence contrary to section 38, was consistent with a change of policy of the Department of Justice taken in late 2013.  In part, that was a response to judicial criticism arising from the fact that the latter section provided for a maximum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment, whereas the maximum sentence for an offence contrary to section 37 was 14 years’ imprisonment.  She described the judicial criticism as being in respect of the resulting disparity of sentence imposed on those for different offences arising out of the conveyance by vessel into Hong Kong of persons not permitted to land in Hong Kong.

17. Ms Ching submitted that the established starting point for sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for an offence contrary to section 37 of the Ordinance, noted by Bokhary J in the judgment of this court in the Queen v Lui Shui Lun [13] was identified in respect of the use of a sampan, rather than a bigger vessel, in which typically less than 10 unauthorised entrants were carried.  That case involved two unauthorised entrants described as being “able-bodied adult men” carried on board a sampan in Deep Bay.

18. Then, Ms Ching submitted that the judge had treated the applicant unduly leniently in ordering that only two months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge 3 was ordered to be served consecutively to that imposed in respect of Charge 1.  She submitted that it was appropriate to order that the whole of the sentences of imprisonment imposed for each charge be served consecutive.  In support of that submission, she drew the attention of the court to the judgment of this court in HKSAR v Sze Yu [14] in which that approach has been adopted by this court in addressing the appropriate sentences to be imposed in respect of offences contrary to section 37 of the Ordinance and section 72 of the Shipping and Port control Ordinance, Cap. 312.

Other submissions

19. Given that the same argument had been advanced in grounds of appeal against sentence in HKSAR v Huang Song [15] which case was listed before Yeung VP and D. Pang J, that case had been adjourned from 11 September to 12 September 2014 for hearing after the oral hearing in this matter.  In those circumstances, the court invited oral submissions from counsel for the parties [16] in that case, in effect as amicus curiae, to assist this court on the issue of law.

20. For his part, Mr Tong Li informed the court that the Hansard record of the Legislative Council discussions arising from the amendment of Part VIIA [17] of the Ordinance in October 1993, when the maximum sentence or an offence contrary to section 37 was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment, recorded the fact that the Secretary for Security stated that :

“ Illegal immigration from China remains a serious problem.  The overall figures for this year are still over 10% up on the same period last year.  The problem is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.  It is, therefore, necessary to retain Part VIIA has a strong sanction against the “make ends” who engage in this illicit trade.”

A consideration of the submissions

21. The expressions of judicial concern, to which Ms Ching adverted in her submissions, are illustrated by the observations of District Court Judge A. Kwok, the judge who sentenced the applicant, in his Reasons for Sentence in HKSAR v Liu Jingfeng & Another [18]. In passing sentence, the judge adverted to the earlier observations of District Court Judge Browne in his reasons for sentence in HKSAR v Chen Hui Yung :

“ In DCCC1411/2009, His Honour Judge Browne had already expressed that there was a discrepancy in the treatment of the people bringing unauthorised entrants from the Mainland and people who are unauthorised from elsewhere. Judge Browne had already urged that there should be an amendment of the law either to reform the definition of “unauthorised entrant” or simply to increase the maximum sentence under section 38. The case was decided in March 2010. More than three years had elapsed since but unfortunately nothing was done so far to remedy the situation and instead in the last three years, we saw the growing numbers of the influx of people, particularly South East Asians, from China to Hong Kong to seek political asylum. Once again, I can only adopt what Judge Browne had said in that case and urge the authority to remedy the situation without delay.” [Italics added.]

22. In HKSAR v Chen Hui Yung, in which the defendant, the coxswain of a wooden vessel that had brought 20 South Asian persons into Hong Kong waters, was sentenced for an offence contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance (Charge 1) and an offence contrary to section 38 of the Ordinance (Charge 2).  The vessel was in a dilapidated condition with severely compromised watertight integrity, but without any bilge pump.  Its low freeboard rendered it liable to flooding in moderate conditions.  It had no firefighting appliances, life saving equipment or navigation lights.  Two of the 20 passengers were children aged two and three years.  In the result, District Court Judge Browne sentenced the defendant, who pleaded guilty, to 18 months’ imprisonment on each of the two charges, which he ordered to be served consecutively.  Of Charge 2, he said :[19]

“  With regards to the 2^nd charge, the maximum sentence is three years’ imprisonment.  I take the view, looking at similar cases, that an appropriate sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.  In my view, these sentences are wholly inadequate.  Had the persons on board the vessel been unauthorised entrants, the prosecution would have been under 37D of the Immigration Ordinance and the usual starting period for sentence would have been a term of five years’ imprisonment.  The people on board this vessel do not fall within the definition of “unauthorised entrants” under section 2 of the Immigration Ordinance.

I am told that this is a matter that has caused some concern because of the discrepancy in treatment of people bringing unauthorised entrants from the mainland and people who are unauthorised from elsewhere.  Under section 37, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment as opposed to three under section 38(1).  I am advised that this has caused concern and a possible reform of the definition of “unauthorised entrants” in section 2 of the Ordinance is being considered.  It seems to me a simple solution might be simply to increase the maximum sentence under section 38.”

23. Of course, in the instant case the judge was not concerned at all with section 38 of the Ordinance.  The judge acknowledged as much in observing that concerns that “people were treated differently under different sections of the Ordinance albeit that the criminality are basically and generally the same”[20] had been “remedied by the prosecution’s decision to choose instead to charge the defendant under section 39 of the Ordinance.”  For that matter, he was not concerned directly with section 37 of the Ordinance.  The applicant was to be sentenced for an offence committed contrary to section 39 of the Ordinance.  The applicant’s culpability fell to be determined in the context of that offence.  One of the factors relevant to that issue was the maximum sentence provided by the section, namely 7 years’ imprisonment.

24. Given that the legislature had determined to distinguish the  criminality involved in the conveyance of “unlawful entrants” into Hong Kong, the definition of which was noted earlier, from the criminality involved in the conveyance into Hong Kong of all other persons not permitted to land in Hong Kong, and to mark that offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment, the judge fell into error in determining that the criminality involved in the commission of the offence contrary to section 37 and section 39 “are in fact exactly the same”.  Due deference is to be afforded by the court to the clear legislative intent.  For the same reason, he erred in his determination to adopt “the Court of Appeal’s usual sentencing guideline or practice in so far as section 39 of offence is concerned when I come to deal with a similar section 39 offence.” [21]  His discretion in sentencing in respect of Charge 1 having miscarried, it falls to this court to sentence the applicant afresh on that charge.

25. Of the status of the persons conveyed on board the sampan by the applicant, the judge noted that they :[22]

“ were all Pakistanis with no valid travel documents and they have not obtained permission to enter Hong Kong.”

In that context, it is to be noted that the Summary of Facts states that they “were all refused permission to land in Hong Kong by the Immigration Department.”

26. As noted earlier, in giving his reasons for sentence in Liu Jingfen, in October 2013, in imposing sentence for an offence contrary to section 38 of the Ordinance in respect of offences committed in June 2013, the judge noted that in the three years since the observations made by District Court Judge Browne in March 2010 in Chen Hui Yung :

“ we saw the growing numbers of the influx of people particularly South East Asian, from China to Hong Kong to seek political asylum.”

27. There is no information as to the purpose in coming to Hong Kong of the seven Pakistanis conveyed by the applicant nor of what, if any, applications they made on arrival in Hong Kong.  On the other hand, the increasing prevalence of conduct over a period of years, which was visited then with charges of offences contrary to section 38 of the Ordinance, was a matter of relevance to sentence.  As is apparent from the submissions of Ms Ching, since late 2013 that conduct has been dealt with by a charge of an offence contrary to section 39 of the Ordinance.

28. On any view, the offences committed by the applicant were serious offences.  The applicant conveyed into Hong Kong in the middle of the night on the open seas no fewer than seven passengers, who were seeking to land in Hong Kong without permission, on a vessel that was bereft of the requisite safety equipment.  We are satisfied that the appropriate starting point for sentence in respect of Charge 1 is 4½ years’ imprisonment.  No issue was taken with the enhancement of the sentence by the judge to be imposed in respect of Charge 1 of 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect the aggravating factor in the commission of the offence of the absence on the vessel of the requisite firefighting and life-saving equipment.  The judge said that in doing so he had regard to the judgments of this court in HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [23] and HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing [24].  The resulting total sentence for Charge 1 is 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.  There was no dispute that the applicant is entitled to a one-third discount from that sentence to reflect his plea of guilty.

Charge 3

29. No issue was taken by the applicant in respect of the starting point for sentence stipulated by the judge in respect of Charge 3, namely, 12 months’ imprisonment, or the resulting sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment.

Consecutive sentences

30. Finally, no issue was taken by the applicant in respect of the order made by the judge that two months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge 3 be served consecutively to the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge 1.  By contrast, it was suggested on behalf of the respondents that the judge’s order was “lenient”.

31. The judgment of the court in HKSAR v Sze Yu is not an authority for the proposition that where a charge of an offence contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance is laid against a defendant, together with a charge of an offence contrary to section 37, 38 or 39 of the Ordinance, the court must order that the sentences of imprisonment imposed be served consecutively.  Although in HKSAR v Sze Yu this court approved the judge’s order that those sentences be served consecutively, it is to be remembered that the facts of the case are an egregious example of conduct that endangers the safety of others at sea.  In the judgment of the court, Cheung JA noted of that conduct :[25]

“ The police chased after the sampan. By then two other police launches had arrived at the scene and assisted in the chase. The police had signalled the sampan to stop by flashing lights, sounding horns and shooting flares into the sky.

However, the sampan did not stop but steered at high speed in a zigzag course, making sudden and violent changes in directions. One of the police launches had to change course several times to avoid a collision.

The chase lasted about 15 minutes at which point the sampan’s engine caught fire and the sampan capsized. The waves at that time were at grade two to three.

The 10 people on board fell into the sea. No life-saving equipment was seen. Police jumped into the sea to rescue the passengers, all of whom had some injuries and four officers received injuries as well. Some passengers were unconscious; three had swallowed sea water and was suffering from “respiratory insufficiency”. One passenger had a first degree burn to the right arm. All 10 passengers were found to be unauthorized entrants to Hong Kong.

The sampan was inspected by the Marine Department and found that there was no life-saving or fire-fighting equipment, and no navigation lights on the sampan.  The inspector concluded that the sampan was not appropriately equipped and not suitable for carrying passengers.”

32. Of the circumstances of the commission of the offence the subject of Charge 3, the judge said :[26]

“ There was no attempt to accelerate or make a sharp turn by the defendant to avoid the police vessel when the police vessel attempted to intercept the sampan. There was no collision. Therefore, there were no aggravating factor (s) in this charge.”

33. We are satisfied that the judge was correct in that determination.

34. In this regard, as noted earlier, it is to be remembered that the judge had enhanced by 3 months’ imprisonment the starting point for sentence to be taken for Charge 1, to reflect the absence of the requisite fire and life-saving equipment on the vessel.  Of course, to avoid double counting, that is a matter to which regard is to be had in a consideration of what, if any, of the sentence to be imposed in respect of Charge 3 is to be made consecutive to that imposed in respect of Charge 1.

35. In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the judge’s order that twomonths only of the sentence imposed in respect of Charge 3 be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in respect of charge 1 was appropriate.

Conclusion

36. In the result, we quash the sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment imposed in respect of Charge 1 and, in its place, impose a sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment.  We make no other orders.  Accordingly, the total sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant is 40 months’ imprisonment.

[1] “If a person on board a ship is seeking to land from the ship in contravention of section 38(1)(a), the captain of the ship shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

   (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $600000 and to imprisonment for 7 years;

   (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of $600,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years,

  unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that such person was seeking to land in contravention of section 38(1)(a).”

[2] “  (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who–

(a) being a person who by virtue of section 7 may not land in Hong Kong without the permission of an immigration officer or immigration assistant, lands in Hong Kong without such permission; or (b) having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully, remains in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 4 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

(2) ….    

(3)  ….
(4)  If a person lands from a ship in contravention of subsection (1)(a) –

(a) the captain of the ship; and

(b)  the owner of the ship and his agent,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable–

(i) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $600,000 and to imprisonment for 7 years; and

(ii) on summary conviction, to a fine of $600,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years,

unless he proves … ”

[3] Reasons for Sentence, paragraphs 8 and 9.

[4] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 10.

[5] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 14.

[6] “ (1)  Subject to subsection (2), if a ship enters Hong Kong with an unauthorized entrant on board–

(a) each member of the crew;

(b)the owner of the ship and his agent; and

(c) any person who participated in making arrangements to enable the voyage on which the unauthorized entrant boarded the ship or was brought to Hong Kong to take place, commits an offence and is liable–

(i)   on conviction on indictment to a fine of $5,000,000 and to imprisonment for 14 years; and

(ii)  on summary conviction to a fine of $350,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.”

[7] “ (1)   Subject to subsection (2), any person who, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not such other person is in Hong Kong–

(a)  arranges or assists the passage to, or within, Hong Kong;

(b) offers to arrange or assist the passage to, or within, Hong Kong; or

(c) does or offers to do an act preparatory to or for the purpose of arranging or assisting the passage to, or within, Hong Kong,

of a person who is, or of a conveyance which carries, an unauthorized entrant, commits an offence and is liable–

(i)   on conviction on indictment to a fine of $5000000 and to imprisonment for 14 years;

(ii)  on summary conviction to a fine of $350000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.”

[8] Reasons for Sentence, paragraphs 14-17.

[9] Section 37A provides:

“  unauthorized entrant” means a person belonging to a class or description of persons who, by an order made under section 37B, are declared to be unauthorized entrants, other than a person who under subsection (2) of that section is excepted from the declaration in such order.”

· The Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) Order, Cap. 115D declares the following persons to be unauthorized entrants:

“ (1) Subject to the exceptions specified in sub-paragraph (2), the following persons are declared to be unauthorized entrants–

(a) all persons resident or formerly resident in Vietnam;
(aa) all persons who leave, or seek to leave, the People’s Republic of China when not in possession of documents issued in that country permitting them to do so in accordance with its laws;

(b) all persons resident or formerly resident in Macau;

(c) all persons who are or have been in Macau, whether in transit or in any other circumstances whatsoever.

(2) The following persons are excepted from the declaration in subparagraph (1)–

…. ”

[10] HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [2011] 1 HKLRD 447.

[11] HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing CACC 180/2010 (unreported) 5 November 2010.

[12] Reasons for Sentence, paragraphs 18 and 20.

[13] Queen v Lui Shui Lun (CACC 109/1995; unreported, 17 August 1995) .

[14] HKSAR Sze Yu (CACC 143/2003; unreported, 14 August 2003).

[15] HKSAR v Huang Song (CACC 82/2014).

[16] Mr Tong Li for the applicant and Ms Winnie Lam for the respondent.

[17] Hansard–Official Report of Proceedings–27 October 1993, page 563.

[18] HKSAR v Liu Jingfeng & Another (DCCC 813/2013; unreported, 11 October 2013) .

[19] HKSAR v Chen Hui Yung (DCCC 1411/2009; unreported, 8 March 2010) .

[20] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 16.

[21] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 17.

[22] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 2.

[23] HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [2011] 1 HKLRD 447.

[24] HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing (CACC 180/2010; unreported, 5 November 2010).

[25] HKSAR v Sze Yu, paragraphs 6-10.

[26] Reasons for Sentence, paragraph 21.