HKSAR v. Pansegrauw Jacobus Adriaan

DCCC 1537/2025

[2026] HKDC 818

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1537 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant is Mr Jacobus Adriaan Pansegrauw, a South African citizen, who is charged and has pleaded guilty to one offence of importing specimens of Appendix I species otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 5(1)  of Cap 586, contrary to sections 5(1)  and (3)  of the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, Cap 586.

2.Particulars of the offence to which he has pleaded guilty show that the offence occurred on the 14 February 2025 in Hong Kong when he imported specimens of an Appendix I species, namely 39 pieces of scheduled rhino horns otherwise other than in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Ordinance, Cap 586.

3.Facts are simply stated in the Summary of Facts which has been agreed by the defendant.  It was in the afternoon of 14 February 2025, the defendant flew to Hong Kong from South Africa via Singapore arriving at the Hong Kong International Airport.  At the Customs Hall, his luggage was inspected.  A search of his checked-in suitcase found four paper boxes containing a total of 39 pieces of rhinoceros horn weighing 6.31 kilos in total.  That of course is an endangered species, the rhinoceros. 

4.The rhino horn itself was analysed by Mr Chan Hon-ki who confirmed that those items were from a rhinoceros species and were listed in Appendix I of the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, Cap 586.  The estimated value of that total of rhinoceros horns was some $2,492,450.  Of course, no import licence existed.

5.The defendant made certain admissions under caution.  He admitted the suitcase belonged to him.  He claimed he had no knowledge of the exhibits found, that is the rhinoceros horn.  He said the items were given to him by his boss and he was to hand them over to a person call “Mark” in Hong Kong.  He said he had received no remuneration.  He said in a later interview, he said the item were given to him by his boss and he was instructed to hand the items over to Mark.  He never checked the contents of the suitcase.

6.An examination of the defendant’s mobile phone did show communication with a person called “Ho Marc Wai” about the collection of the items at the airport.  The facts clearly set out the offence and I convicted the defendant accordingly.

7.The defendant is aged 42, he is described as a South African male.  He of course has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He is not married but I am told he has a daughter.  He has worked as a driver in South Africa.  He has been detained since the date of his arrest and clearly is anxious to return to his family in South Africa.

8.In terms of mitigation, the defendant puts forward that he resided with his mother and the daughter before his arrest. The defendant was at the time in South Africa the sole breadwinner of his family.  He was working for a company called “U-Group” in Johannesburg as a drive since 2021.  The defendant admits he was negligent in not checking the contents of the suitcase.  He said that he trusted his boss.  He was also using the trip to Hong Kong to purchase mobile phones and clothes which he could take back to South Africa for resale.

9.The foremost mitigating factors of course is the defendant’s early guilty plea which has saved court’s time and resources.  Secondly, it is submitted there is no evidence to prove the defendant received any remuneration for his involvement, nor is there any evidence to suggest that the rhino horns were brought into Hong Kong for commercial purposes or that the rhino horns came from a slaughtered rhino because it is the case that rhino horns can be harvested.  In fact, in respect of that aspect of the case the facts are silent and I cannot make that assumption.  That would be an aggravating factor if proved by the prosecution but it is not present in the facts that I have before me.

10.As far as sentencing guidelines, there are, on the face of it, no sentencing guideline for this particular offence.  I am going to refer to the case of HKSAR v Fung Tak Cheung, CACC160/2020 where an array of authorities were referred to and the relevant authorities referred to in that case was an authority called HKSAR v Yan Tianci involving 1.32 kilos of rhinoceros horn which led to a starting point of sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment and a case called HKSAR v Muller Canlyn Yolande at [2020], HKFC at page 630, where a total of 15.93 kilos of Ceratotherium rhinoceros horns was involved which led to a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment.

11.I also refer to another case referred to as DCCC680/2018 involving some 3 kilos of rhino horns where a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment was adopted.  It is submitted that this is the normal range of sentencing in Hong Kong for offences involving the importation of rhino horn and that would be the framework within which the decision on the starting point for sentence should be taken.

12.I am also informed the defendant has been remanded in custody since his arrest. 

13.I bear in mind the previous recorded cases that have been referred to me.  Also, the defendant’s admission of facts and his plea of guilty.  I will take a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for this case.  Defendant is entitled to a one-third discount which leads to a final sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.