HKSAR v. ZHOU SHENGQUAN

DCCC 279/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 279 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to assisting the passage within Hong Kong of six unauthorized entrants (Charge [1]) and endangering the safety of those six unauthorized entrants at sea (Charge [2]).

Summary of facts

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant are that at 9:03 pm on 29 January 2015, marine police officers on board two police vessels were deployed to investigate a suspicious motorised sampan that had entered Hong Kong waters towards Tai O.  Officers found the sampan and signalled it to stop.  The defendant, the coxswain who controlled the sampan, paid no heed to the signal and tried to swerve away.  After a brief chase, the sampan was stopped off the west shores of Tai O at 9:09 pm.

3.  Police investigation revealed that the defendant, together with the six other people on board were all unauthorized entrants.  The defendant admitted that he was instructed to convey those people from Zhuhai to Hong Kong for a reward of RMB 3,000.  Subsequently the sampan was sent to the Marine Department for inspection.  It was found to be unseaworthy for 4 reasons, which have been particularised in Charge [2].  In sum, it was not suitable for navigation. 

Mitigation

4.  In mitigation, defence solicitor Mr Chan told me that in 2014 the defendant started to work as a fisherman in Zhuhai, China earning about RMB 3,000 – RMB 4,000 a month, which was insufficient to support a family consisting of his elderly parents, paralyzed elder brother, his own wife and daughter.  Out of greed he decided to embark on the criminal journey, and he is now remorseful for what he had done.  Prior to the present convictions he had no criminal record.  He confessed to the crime at the earliest opportunity so he now pleads for leniency.

5.  Mr Chan urges the court not to enhance the sentence because the condition of the sampan was not so bad.  There were sufficient lifejackets on board, albeit they were not approved ones. Furthermore, the engine condition was classified as grade “C”, ie unsatisfactory and not “D”, which means poor. 

Sentence

6.  Mr Chan for the defendant has helpfully submitted a total of five Court of Appeal sentencing authorities.  In my judgment the most helpful one would be HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [2011] 1 HKLRD 447 which confirmed that the usual starting point for Charge [1] should be 5 years imprisonment.  Also, the condition of the vessel in that case was in many respects similar to the present one, and I accept that this case is not the worst of its kind like HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin CACC 357/2004.  In Tang Zhuyan the Court of Appeal held that 12 months starting point was appropriate for Charge [2], and after giving a discount for plea it ordered 2 months to run consecutively. 

7.  Having considered the facts of the case, counsel’s mitigation and the relevant sentencing guideline, I hereby sentence the defendant in the following manner.  For Charge [1], I impose a term of 40 months imprisonment.  For Charge [2], I impose a prison term of 8 months, 2 months of which is to run consecutively to that for Charge [1].

8.  The resultant sentence is therefore 42 months imprisonment.