R. v. Chau Siu Chun

CACC000274/1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 274
(Criminal)

_____________

_____________

Coram: Hon Macdougall VP, Penlington and Liu JJA

Date of hearing: 14 December 1994

Date of judgment: 14 December 1994

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Liu JA:

1. The applicant was charged with having given assistance to unauthorized entrants to come to Hong Kong.

2. It is true that at the time of the arrest, the applicant's outboard engine was positioned out of water. Some of the illegal entrants found in the applicant's sampan told the police that they had paid RMB $500 each and that they were taken to a beach where the applicant had them accommodated in his sampan. The applicant steered the sampan with the aid of an outboard engine towards Hong Kong. The outboard engine failed in the journey. Police officers on patrol had the applicant and the six unauthorised entrants arrested. The applicant was convicted after a trial.

3. The applicant is 26 and unmarried. He has elderly parents in China, aged 75 and 62 respectively. It is claimed that they are dependent on the applicant. The applicant held a permit to fish in the waters of Deep Bay. He also had permission to land on the Hong Kong shore of that Bay for the purposes of fishing. There was no excuse for the applicant to provide illicit passage within Hong Kong waters of these six unauthorised entrants.

4. The judge took the starting point for sentencing as five years' imprisonment. It was acknowledged that there was no evidence that the applicant stood to gain financially. The applicant did not plead guilty and failed to co-operate with the police. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, the trial judge regarded three and a half years as being appropriate. A month was discounted for the period the applicant spent in custody pursuant to the instructions and authority of the Secretary of Security, which would not count towards the computation of his sentence.

5. We have noted the grounds in the applicant's written application and the further plea of remorse that he advances before us this morning. We cannot say the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The application for leave to appeal against sentence has no merit and the same is refused.

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr A A Bruce (Sr. C. C.) for Crown Prosecutor