R. v. WONG FU KEUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No 158
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. This applicant is a man in his late 30's. He faced two charges. The first was of assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorised entrants, namely two young women from China, contrary to s.37D(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. And the second charge was of trafficking in persons to Hong Kong by bringing those two women into Hong Kong for the purpose of prostitution, contrary to s. 129(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2. He was tried before HH Judge Longley in the District Court.

3. On February 9 this year, he was convicted on both charges. And on the 29th of that month he was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment by way of concurrent terms of three years on the 1st charge and 21/2 years on the 2nd charge.

4. He now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. In support: he points, in his written notice of application, to the hardship which his incarceration causes to his family; continues by asserting that he is remorseful; and ends by asking for one more chance to reform.

5. The circumstances of the offences may be taken from what the judge said to the applicant when sentencing him:

"Both charges arise out of the same series of events. On the evidence I have heard I am satisfied that you and Ng Chung Ming, as a result of pre-arrangements with a person or persons in China, went to Ko Lau Wan pier on 19-9-95 to meet these two girls who were due to arrive illegally from China by motor boat. Your role and that of Ng Chung Ming was to provide them with forged identity documents and take them to the urban area for the purpose of prostitution. You were arrested shortly after you had taken the two girls onto the local ferry to Wong Shek Pier."

6. Neither did the applicant have a clear record nor did he plead guilty.

7. The question is simply what punishment is appropriate for his crimes. The judge rightly recognised that these were serious offences, and he arrived at a total sentence with which we cannot interfere.

8. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.