The Queen v. Yeung Wai Ming

Headnote

Aiding and abetting illegal immigrant to remain – guilty knowledge not only reasonable inference.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 1987

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 3rd November 1987

Date of delivery of judgment: 3rd November 1987

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

1. The appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting the remaining in Hong Kong of an illegal immigrant.

2. The prosecution case was admitted. On 26th May this year an illegal immigrant, CHAN Kwok-hung, was found in the home of the appellant. The appellant told the police that he had known Chan for only two days, he did not realise he was an illegal immigrant and he had stayed with him for only one night.

3. The appellant gave evidence. He said he was selling clothes in Temple Street that evening. Chan introduced himself as Fai Chai and they discussed the possibility of selling clothes in China. The appellant finished work at about 11 p.m. and suggested Chan joined him for a snack. Afterwards Chan said he had nowhere to sleep. The appellant was rather bored and invited him to spend the night. He had taken friends home before. He had not asked Chan any questions about himself and he did not know he was an illegal immigrant.

4. Chan gave evidence for the defence and told a story that was substantially the same.

5. In his judgment the magistrate said :-

“It would defy common sense to say Defendant did not know the Defendant witness was an Illegal Immigrant. You just don't pick up total strangers off the street and take them at home. The whole of Defendants evidence is such that anyone with a bit of common sense can draw, the appropriate inferences that he knew the Defendant witness to be an Illegal Immigrant.

I find him quilty as charged.”

6. I am, with respect, unable to agree with the magistrate that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant knew Chan was an illegal immigrant There was no evidence to contradict that of the defence witnesses. It was not so outrageous or improbable a story that it could not reasonably be true.

7. The Crown did not support the conviction. For these reasons therefore I allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

Mr S.R. Bailey, Crown Counsel, for Respondent

Appellant in person