HKSAR v. YUNG WING YAN

DCCC 496/2024

[2026] HKDC 169

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 496 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant was found guilty after trial of a charge of assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unlawful entrants.

2.  Around 10 am on the morning of 13 October 2023, taxi driver Ng Ping Keung (Ng)  dropped off 4 female Singaporean tourists at a roundabout near a pavilion on the East Dam of High Island Reservoir, Sai Kung.  He was then approached by the defendant who asked him if he could drive him to Hung Hom.  As PW3 had promised the Singaporean tourists to pick them up around 11:30 am at the same place, he refused the defendant’s request.  He then drove his taxi and parked it near the exit of the same roundabout with a view to taking a rest in his taxi while waiting for the tourists.

3.  Shortly after he parked his taxi, the defendant approached him again and asked him if he could drive him to Sai Kung Town Centre.  Thinking that he would have enough time for the job, he accepted the offer.  At first Ng thought that the defendant was alone.  However, once he indicated his agreement to drive him to Sai Kung, the defendant gestured to a group of people in the pavilion.  Some of those people came over in a hurry.  Eventually, 4 of those people, consisting of 3 males and a female, got into his taxi.

4.  Before he drove off with these passengers, Ng asked the defendant if he could transfer the passengers to another taxi if he came across one on his way. The defendant said no, indicating that he had other people who needed to head to the urban area and that they would gather together in the town centre.

5.  Ng then started driving in the direction of Sai Kung Town Centre with the 3 males and one female passengers on board.  After driving for about 3 km, his taxi was stopped by a police vehicle on Man Yee Road.  None of his passengers were able to produce any Hong Kong Identity Cards to the police.  It was discovered that the passengers were all Vietnamese nationals who only had records of entry to China on 6 October 2023 but no records of entry to Hong Kong.  They were all unlawful entrants.

6.  The defendant is 46 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong and has completed one year of university education.  He is married with 3 children.  He is a support driver for the movie business, and is the sole breadwinner of his family.  He has two driving-related convictions in 2020, for which he was sentenced to 120 hours of community service.

7.  In mitigation, Mr Allan pointed out that the evidence shows that the defendant played a relatively minor role of just arranging the conveyance by taxi of the unlawful entrants.  The defendant has no previous convictions of a similar nature.  The only convictions he has were for driving-related offences. During the trial, the defence only disputed the issue of identity.  He asked the court to be as lenient as possible under those circumstances.

8.  The offence the defendant is guilty of is a serious offence, with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000,000.  The offence addresses a serious social problem which has been a persistent issue in Hong Kong for decades.

9.  The defendant assisted the passage of 4 unlawful entrants within Hong Kong by arranging for their conveyance by a taxi from a remote part of Sai Kung to its town centre.

10.  It would appear that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment is usually adopted for taxi drivers who transport unlawful entrants from one part of the territory to another[1].

11.  I assess the defendant’s culpability to be on a par with such taxi drivers’ culpability, and will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

12.  The defendant is not a man of unblemished record.  He was found guilty after trial.  There are no mitigating factors which can decrease the extent to which he should be punished.

13.  In the absence of such factors, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years.