R. v. CHIU MAN HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.230
(Criminal)

______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of being a member of the crew of a ship which entered Hong Kong with unauthorized entrants. It was particularised that on 11th January 1995, he was the person in charge of a vessel which entered Hong Kong with seven unauthorized entrants. Three of those were females who were in advanced stages of pregnancy.

2. After arrest the applicant made a statement in which he said that he bought the sampan in November 1992 for $30,000; that he agreed with a man to convey the five female unauthorized entrants for $400 and that the two male unauthorized entrants had approached him separately and agreed to pay him $400 and $500 respectively on arrival. He claimed to the police that he had not, at the time he was apprehended, received any money.

3. When sentencing the trial judge said:

"On board this small boat, of which I have seen a photograph, were five female unauthorized entrants, three of whom were in an advanced state of pregnancy, and in addition there were two male unauthorized entrants. The vessel was intercepted by two Royal Navy officers and it would appear that the defendant was wise enough not to undertake any dangerous manoeuvres whilst they were in pursuit of him. Nevertheless, to drive a vessel of this nature and size, at night without lights, and at high speed in open sea with far too many passengers on board, including three heavily pregnant women, is of itself highly dangerous."

The applicant comes before us today asking for a more lenient sentence than the three years and eleven months which he received. He urges family considerations saying that he is the sole breadwinner and that he was coerced into committing the offences.

4. The sentences imposed on persons brought before the courts for offences of this nature are severe ones. They are meant to be. The courts have a duty to the residents of Hong Kong to pass sentences which ensure that illegal immigrants do not flood into the territory. We find it difficult to believe, given that for some years such sentences have been imposed, that persons who are minded to commit these offences are not well aware that they face severe penalties if apprehended. We are aware that the families of offenders suffer. That, however, is a matter which offenders should bear in mind before undertaking such unlawful enterprises.

5. The sentence was, given the applicable guidelines, a lenient one. Nothing that has been advanced today would allow us to interfere therewith. We conclude only by saying that we would have been greatly assisted when assessing the sentence had the trial judge seen fit to indicate the starting point which he used and the way in which he applied the guidelines enunciated by this court.

6. The application is refused.