R. v. Chan Shing Chun

CACC000390/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 390

(Criminal)

______________

______________

Coram: Hon Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 9 November 1995

Date of judgment: 9 November 1995

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Mayo, JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him of four years and eight months' imprisonment for assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorised entrants.

2. This was a bad case. Police officers on duty in Mirs Bay using radar and thermal imager sighted a sampan moving slowly southwards. They kept it under observation. It increased its speed to 20 - 25 knots. It was dark and there was a two to four scale wind and commensurate seas.

3. The police officers went in pursuit of the sampan and signalled it to stop. It did not do so.

4. Several times it came into collision with police vessels. Eventually it was intercepted.

5. The police officers then discovered that the sampan had been steered by the applicant and that there were 14 people on board none of whom were authorised entrants to Hong Kong.

6. Having regard to the size of the sampan 19 feet x 6 feet and the weather conditions the gross overloading of the sampan and the fact that it was dark this was a gravely hazardous operation.

7. His Honour Judge Jackson stated in his reasons for sentence that if the applicant had not pleaded guilty to the first charge he would have been minded to impose a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. Even having regard to the serious nature of the offence that would appear to be slightly on the high side.

8. In his grounds of appeal the applicant expresses the opinion that the sentence imposed was excessive.

9. Before us he referred to the misleading information he was given by the ring leader of the scheme. He also referred us to the difficult circumstances of his family in China. He did not think that he was doing any harm. With that we disagree.

10. The sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle. The application is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr F. Veltro for Crown Prosecutor

Mr Chan Shing Chun, Applicant - in person/present