HKSAR v. Lin Zhenlie

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 815/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 8 April 2019.

1. The 1st defendant has been convicted after trial of two offences relating to the attempt to export these goods.  I have set out my basis on which I have convicted him.  I do not propose to take that any further now.

Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case

Case No.DCCC 815/2018[2019] HKDC 661
Court
District Court
Date08 Apr 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 815/2018

[2019] HKDC 661

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 815 OF 2018

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Lin Zhenlie (D1)  

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

Before: HH Judge Casewell
Date: 8 April 2019 at 3.16 pm
Present: Mr Kamlesh Arjan Sadhwani leading Mr Emmanuel Benami, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Oliver Davies, instructed by Paul Kwong & Co, for the 1st defendant
Offence: (1) Attempting to export unmanifested cargo (企圖輸出未列艙單貨物)
(2) Attempting to export specimens of Appendix II species without licence (沒有許可證而企圖出口附錄II物種的標本)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The 1st defendant has been convicted after trial of two offences relating to the attempt to export these goods.  I have set out my basis on which I have convicted him.  I do not propose to take that any further now.

2.He is from the mainland.  He is now 53 years of age and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He is a cook when he is not in Hong Kong.  There is no information as to when he entered Hong Kong, but he entered on a two-way permit.

3.As far as the offence is concerned, there is no tariff for this offence but the general trend of sentencing is for offences of this nature, the sentence is between 10 to 15 months’ imprisonment to be imposed.

4.There is certainly no tariff or trend of sentencing for the 2nd charge, but in my view, the 2nd charge does not add much materially to the 1st charge in the circumstances of this case.

5.The 1st defendant’s role can be described as minor, as far as we could see, established on the facts he assisted in the loading operation.  I consider that an immediate sentence of imprisonment will be appropriate for the defendant.  I do note he has been detained since 29 June.

6.Also I do note the value of the goods which was set at, I think it’s $4 million-odd, $4½ million puts it, in my view, in the middle of the range.  What I will do is impose a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

7.That will be my order on both charges, to be served concurrently.

 
 

  (T Casewell)
  District Judge

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 815/2018