LI HON PIU v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994 No. 357
(Criminal)

___________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Wong J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted after trial before His Honour Judge Whaley in the District Court of one charge of assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants. He was also charged with remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration to which offence he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment in respect of the 1st Charge, and 15 months in respect of the latter offence and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of 3 1/2 years on the ground that it is too severe.

2. The facts in this case were that one Madam Cheung Yuen-yung, who lived in a village in Longgang, Mainland China, wanted to give birth of her second child in Hong Kong after she became pregnant. Her husband is a Hong Kong resident. As a result of enquiries which she had made in her village, she approached a Mr. Lam who promised to organise her passage to Hong Kong if she agreed to pay 200 Reminbi in China and the balance of HK$3,500 upon her arrival in Hong Kong.

3. Subsequently Madam Cheung and two other females were taken to a pier by Mr. Lam where the three women were handed over to the applicant. The three women and the applicant boarded a boat and set sail for Hong Kong.

4. On arrival in Hong Kong, the applicant told the females to alight from the boat and to follow him. He took them up to a hillside path until they came to a highway, where the applicant told them to kneel down to wait for a car. Later he told them to walk to a road which was called Bride's Pool Road where they were intercepted by the police.

5. In his written statement to the Court, the applicant pleaded for leniency, citing family circumstances and background and the fact that he did not receive any money as mitigating factors. Before us, he also asked for a chance by reducing the sentence of 3 1/2 years.

6. Everything that is in his favour was before the judge and had been carefully considered by him. We are satisfied that the sentence of 3½ years is a proper sentence and one which we would not interfere. The application is therefore refused.