HKSAR v. ZHANG HUI

DCCC 82/2024

[2024] HKDC 1073

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 82 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of Behaving in a disorderly manner on board an aircraft, contrary to Section 12B(3), 12B(10)  and 21 of the Aviation Security Ordinance, Cap 494. The defendant has accepted that his disorderly manner on board the aircraft while in flight elsewhere than in or over Hong Kong jeopardised the good order and discipline on board the aircraft. The particulars of that can be seen from the facts that the defendant has admitted today.

2.  The facts relate to a flight on 25 September 2023 by a company called Batik Air which is a non-Hong Kong controlled aircraft which was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong. I am told the aircraft has what is described as a three-seat layout, single aisle separating three seats to each side, so six seats in each row designated as A, B, C and D, E, F. The victim in this case is PW1. He had some HK$1,250-worth of notes in his wallet. His wallet was placed in a black backpack which was zipped up. Boarding was at about 10:15 am for PW1. He originally was going to go to seat 7F but moved to seat 7C, placed his backpack in the overhead compartment on top of seat 7D then went to sleep. The defendant in fact was found to be seated at seat 7D on that aircraft.

3.  At about 1 o’clock which is some almost 3 hours later, an air hostess was looking for the owner of PW1’s backpack. PW1 admitted to being the owner and it was found that the backpack was half open although it had been secured earlier. This meant that PW1 then went to check his own belongings and at that time, in the facts is described as an object flew from PW1’s right hand and into his backpack and PW1 looked to the right and saw the defendant seated in seat 7D. The object was in fact the banknotes, the $1,250-worth and they had been missing from inside his wallet when he checked. A later video showed the defendant standing on seat 7D and rummaging in that overhead compartment. It is clear that the defendant’s behaviour did jeopardise the good order or discipline on board the aircraft. Those are the basic facts admitted by the defendant.

4.  His antecedents show that he is a person of clear record in Hong Kong, aged 45, but is a resident of China, educated to secondary level, working as a farmer. Further details provided by the defence show the defendant was born on 21 November 1978 in Mainland China. He was educated up to Form 3 level in the Mainland. He has a family, he is a divorcee with two sons. He looks after his mother and was working as what is described as an agricultural farmer earning a monthly income of some RMB10,000.

5.  In mitigation, it is submitted that this is not the most serious of these kind of offences. The value of the money involved is simply $1,250. There is only one victim and the victim himself suffered no loss as the money was returned. No violent behaviour on the plane and the defendant is remorseful of what he has done and understands that his behaviour would cause concern both to the victim, the aircraft staff and other passengers. The defendant asked for a lenient sentence to be passed.

6.  I note in passing that these are offences that do in fact harm the reputation of Hong Kong and flights coming into this city. They cause considerable disruption to the aircraft and its crew and that is an environment that really it must be kept as sterile as possible, they have other jobs to do which relate to the security of the aircraft and the safety of the passengers. So all in all it is necessary that sentences are passed that reflect those considerations. Nevertheless, the maximum sentence that I can adopt is one of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine at Level 5.

7.  Taking into account all the factors I have set out, I will take a starting point for sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 8 months’ imprisonment having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty and that will be the sentence of the court.