HKSAR v. Yang Youlin

DCCC 1156/2024

[2026] HKDC 473

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1156 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Assisting the passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants" (Charge 1)  and a charge of "Endangering the safety of others at sea" (Charge 2).

Summary of Facts

2.About 5:36 a.m. on 16 April 2024, PC 8921 spotted a suspicious moving object (later confirmed to be "the Speedboat")  on the police radar heading towards Black Point, Castle Peak from the east of Neilingding Island at the speed of 20 knots.  After it entered Hong Kong waters, police vessel PV11 was deployed to intercept it.

3.At 5:40 a.m. on the same day, when PV11 was off 1.5 NM north of Black Point, the Speedboat was on its right front side heading east.  PC 10763 (PW2)  saw that the Speedboat was unlit.  About 2 minutes later, PV11 intercepted the Speedboat at 20 metres off the shore of Black Point.  Five illegal immigrants (UEs 1 to 4 and the defendant)  were found on board.  The defendant was in control of the Speedboat. 

4.Four fishing rods with some hooks and five buoyancy aids were found on the Speedboat.  No other fishing equipment (such as baits, water buckets or fishing nets)  was found.  No food or water was found on board either.  The Speedboat had no registration number.

5.Upon enquiry, the defendant and UEs 1 to 4 revealed to the police that they boarded the Speedboat at Xiaolan, Zhong Shan around 4:00 a.m. that day.  The defendant steered the Speedboat to take UEs 1 to 4 for fishing at Black Point.

6.At 6:40 a.m. on the same day, PW2 arrested the defendant for the offence of "Aiding and abetting illegal immigrants".  In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted under caution that he was residing in Zhong Shan in the mainland.  He was asked by someone in the small hours on 16 April 2024 to steer the Speedboat to go fishing.  The defendant claimed that the Speedboat did not belong to him and had no idea about its owner.  He did not have any boating licence and had not steered a boat before.  The defendant also claimed that he was not promised any reward for taking UEs 1 to 4 to go fishing.

7.The Speedboat was examined by a Ship Inspector on 23 April 2024.  It was found seaworthy, but not suitable for operation.  No fire-fighting appliances were equipped on board; no life-saving appliances were equipped on board (the 5 buoyancy aids did not comply with the safety standards); and no navigation lights were fitted on board for night operation.

8.The Immigration Department confirmed that the defendant and UEs 1 to 4 had no valid entry records.  They unlawfully entered and remained in Hong Kong on 16 April 2024.

Mitigation & Sentence

9.The defendant is 35 and has a clear record.  Defence counsel Mr. So informed me that the defendant is divorced with no children.  In mitigation, Mr. So submitted that the defendant was a chef-operator of a small fast food shop earning about RMB6,000 per month.  His shop's business began to suffer losses in 2024, leading him to incur debts. When he was looking for work, he was induced to earn some quick money by driving the Speedboat.  Mr. So stressed that the defendant is truly remorseful. He would like to return home to look after his parents as soon as possible.

Charge 1

10.In respect of sentencing principles and guidelines, the Court of Appeal's decisions in HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin CACC 357/2004 (dated 2 February 2005), HKSAR v Yeung Lap CACC 385/2007 and HKSAR v Tse Chi Hei [2010] 5 HKLRD 708 are relevant.

11.Yeung JA (as he then was)  in Tse Chi Hei held that the usual starting point for a charge of "Assisting the passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants" is 4 years' imprisonment.  If the defendant is the coxswain of the vessel or has taken part in organizing or planning the journey, the starting point should be one of 5 years.  Where there are other aggravating factors such as hiding the illegal immigrants in places where it would be difficult for them to escape in case of an emergency, the dilapidated state of the vessel and the lack of life-saving apparatus, risking the life of passengers on board or an extremely large number of illegal immigrants being on board, the starting point can be raised further.

12.The present case clearly contains several aggravating features, namely the lack of fire-fighting and life-saving equipment on board the Speedboat, as well as the absence of navigation lights for night operation.

13.I consider a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

14.I have considered several cases[1] in relation to the sentencing of this charge.  In the present case, the defendant did not try to escape when intercepted by the Police.  He did not steer the Speedboat in a dangerous manner either.  No one was injured and no vessel was damaged resulting from the defendant's operation of the Speedboat.  The basis of prosecution for this charge is the Speedboat being not suitable for operation.

15.Based on the reasons stated above, the appropriate starting point for this charge is 18 months' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 12 months.  I sentence the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

16.Since the basis of prosecution for Charge 2 (i.e. the safety level of the Speedboat)  also constitutes an aggravating factor in Charge 1, the defendant should not be punished twice.  Having considered the overall criminality of the defendant as well as the totality principle, I order the sentence for Charge 2 to run concurrently with Charge 1; thereby arriving at a total prison term of 40 months.