So Muk Kan v. The Queen

Read the full judgment text of CACC 1014/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. In this case the appellant So Muk Kan appeals against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed upon him at the Fanling Magistrate's Court on the 29th October 1980 for the offence of aiding and abetting the remaining in the Colony of an illegal immigrant. What happened was that he was charged with another man called Chan Ping Kan and both pleaded guilty. Chan was one of a number of men working on a working site. The illegal immigrant came there and Chan promised to contact the illegal imm

Case No.CACC 1014/1980
Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC001014/1980

IN THE SUPREME COURT
Criminal Appeal
1980, No. 1014

BETWEEN
SO MUK KAN Appellant
and
THE QUEEN Respondent

Coram: Barker, J.

Date of Judgment: 19th December, 1980.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In this case the appellant So Muk Kan appeals against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed upon him at the Fanling Magistrate's Court on the 29th October 1980 for the offence of aiding and abetting the remaining in the Colony of an illegal immigrant. What happened was that he was charged with another man called Chan Ping Kan and both pleaded guilty. Chan was one of a number of men working on a working site. The illegal immigrant came there and Chan promised to contact the illegal immigrant's relative, gave the illegal immigrant clothes to change into, and after that he and the appellant took the illegal immigrant for a meal at a restaurant. Whilst they were having the meal the police came, and the appellant escaped but was subsequently arrested.

2. Cases of this nature almost invariably warrant the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence which will ordinarily, unless there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances, be of the order of twelve months. But there are in this case in my judgment a number of factors which remove this from the ordinary kind of case and make it much less serious. In the first place the appellant is a man of good record, secondly he pleaded guilty. Thirdly, it is clear from the circumstances as I have outlined them that what occurred was done without any kind of pre-arrangement on the part of the appellant, there was no question of his getting any kind of financial reward for what he did, and his part in the matter was an extremely minor one. For these reasons in my judgment the sentence of the learned magistrate was too severe. I shall allow the appeal against sentence and substitute therefore a sentence of four months' imprisonment.

Representation:

Frederick Lee (Howell & Co.) for appellant

Freeman for Crown/Respondent