R. v. WONG HOK CHUEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 558

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 25 September 1996 the applicant was convicted after trial by His Honour Judge Hawkes of assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorised entrants and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. He applies for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Application for leave to appeal against conviction

2. The offence took place in the early morning 9 July 1996. A motorised sampan travelling at high speed near the Castle Peak Typhoon Shelter was seen on the radar of a marine police vessel. Another vessel was alerted. The sampan went into the typhoon shelter, hit a wall and was intercepted.

3. There was found on the vessel the applicant and four women. Two of those women were pregnant. The evidence against the applicant came in particular from two police officers. The first officer who was on board the vessel which first saw the sampan on the radar closed with the sampan and then saw through his binoculars that there were five or six persons on board with one person controlling the outboard engine. The next officer was on board the other vessel. He was on the vessel which chased the sampan to the place where it stopped. When it stopped, he saw the person who had been at the stern trying to get out of the sampan by climbing onto the shore. That person was not successful in getting off the boat. When the boat was approached that person was the applicant. Another police officer on board the same vessel confirmed that officer's evidence. Also, evidence was given by one of the females who was on board. She had to be treated as a hostile witness by the Crown.

4. The judge considered the issue before him with some care. He set out the evidence in his reasons for verdict. He found that the police officers were on the whole reliable witnesses. He relied in particular upon the two officers who were on the second vessel. He noted that there was an apparent discrepancy between those two witnesses. He was quite satisfied on the whole of the evidence that the applicant was the person seen at the helm of the boat and was the person who was bringing the four ladies into Hong Kong.

5. The applicant seeks to attack the judge's findings, but makes out no basis for this. The judge heard and saw the witnesses and gave proper reasons for his findings. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

Application to appeal against sentence

6. The applicant asks that the sentence be reduced on the basis that he was not a snake-head, just an illegal immigrant and he has a family to support on the Mainland.

7. In sentencing the judge noted that the sampan did not carry life-saving or fire prevention equipment and that two of the four females were pregnant. Also, that money had been paid by those persons to be brought to Hong Kong. Finally, that the craft had been driven at great speed in an attempt to elude the police. Those are aggravating features. The judge was prepared to accept that the applicant may not have been the only person involved in the scheme but he played an important part in it.

8. Having regard to the serious nature of this offence, and the part played by the applicant in it, 4 years imprisonment was perfectly a proper sentence. The application is refused.