THE QUEEN v. LAW WAN LAM

Mag. App. No. 57/90

------------------

HEADNOTE

-----------------

Aiding and abetting the remaining in Hong Kong of illegal immigrants - providing employment an aggravating feature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 57 OF 1990

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of aiding and abetting the remaining in Hong Kong of illegal immigrants. He was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment on each charge to be served concurrently.  He now appeals against that sentence.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the illegal immigrants referred to in the charges were found to be working at the Soya Bean Factory of the appellant in Lok Ma Chau. The appellant was co-operative with the authorities and continued this co-operation through to his plea of guilty.

3. The offences are of the more serious kind of aiding and abetting of illegal immigrants in that the appellant offered opportunities of employment to the illegal immigrants coming from China.

4. The question of the appropriate sentence in cases of this kind is considered by the Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Law Chuen-fook [1988] H.K.L.R. 164 where Cons. V-P stated that "we feel it inappropriate to suggest any particular period of imprisonment as being in general suitable for those convicted of aiding and abetting save to say that those who offer opportunities of employment to illegal imigrants must expect to receive sentences certainly not less than those imposed upon the illegal immigrants themselves." The authorities in Hong Kong establish that a term of 15 months' imprisonment is the tariff for illegal immigrants.

5. In the Law Chuen-fook case, the appellant was a man of good character. He had led a hardworking life and was a responsible husband and father. In this case, the appellant is also of good character and a hard worker, running his own factory. It is inevitable in circumstances such as this that the families of those convicted suffer the unfortunate consequences of their conduct.

6. In the circumstances of this case, the Magistrate seems to have made a generous allowance for the mitigating factors that were before him, i.e., the plea of guilty and the clear record of the accused. The mitigating features which have been drawn to my attention do not, in my view, justify a further reduction from the allowances already made.

7. On the facts of this case, the sentence was not in any way wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.