Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Appeal

R. v. WONG KAM FAT

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal is allowed because the applicant's culpability was not greater than that of co-accused whose sentence had been reduced; applying the parity principle the sentence for assisting the passage of an unauthorized entrant is reduced from two years nine months to six months and ordered to run concurrently with the 12 month sentence for attempting to export unmanifested cargo, reducing the total term to one year.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced

Orders

  • Application allowed and treated as hearing of the appeal
  • Sentence on first charge (assisting passage of unauthorized entrant) reduced from 2 years 9 months to 6 months
  • Sentences to run concurrently; 6 months concurrent with 12 months on second charge (attempting to export unmanifested cargo)
  • Total sentence reduced to one year

02

Material facts

Parties

WONG KAM FAT

Appellant Counsel: Applicant - in person

THE QUEEN

Respondent Counsel: Mr Derek Pang of the Attorney General's Chambers for Crown/Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Original Sentence on First Charge (months): 33
  • Sentence on Second Charge (months): 12
  • Reduced Sentence on First Charge (months): 6
  • Total Sentence After Reduction (months): 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Sentencing Appeal; Late Notice of Appeal Treated as Hearing of the Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant submitted his culpability was no greater than co-accused Kwok Yung and sought parity with the reduced sentence in R v Kwok Yung; effectively sought reduction of the sentence on the first charge.
Respondent
Crown maintained the original sentences were appropriate and noted procedural irregularities; Crown pointed out a slip by the court concerning concurrency but opposed unjustified reduction or disparity with established sentencing principles.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R v Kwok Yung (Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1995), Court of Appeal decision referenced in judgment

    Parity principle: co-accused of equal culpability should receive comparable sentences

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal practice as exercised in this judgment

    Court has discretion to treat out-of-time applications as hearings of the appeal in the interests of justice

  3. 03

    Hon Yang CJ judgment in Wong Kam Fat (Court of Appeal, 2 May 1996)

    Sentences may be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively; the court may allow a defendant the benefit of a judicial slip in the exercise of discretion

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the applicant's culpability was not greater than that of co-accused whose sentence had been reduced; applying the parity principle the sentence for assisting the passage of an unauthorized entrant is reduced from two years nine months to six months and ordered to run concurrently with the 12 month sentence for attempting to export unmanifested cargo, reducing the total term to one year.

Obiter and limits

  • The court acknowledged it would have been entitled to order consecutive sentences but refrained to avoid causing the applicant immediate grievance after a judicial slip regarding concurrency
  • Reference to R v Kwok Yung as persuasive precedent for reducing the sentence of an accused with comparable culpability

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced

  • Application allowed and treated as hearing of the appeal
  • Sentence on first charge (assisting passage of unauthorized entrant) reduced from 2 years 9 months to 6 months
  • Sentences to run concurrently; 6 months concurrent with 12 months on second charge (attempting to export unmanifested cargo)
  • Total sentence reduced to one year

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal · 2 May 1996

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment· 2 May 1996

R. v. WONG KAM FAT

bjbj

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1995, No. 365 (Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN and

WONG KAM FAT ---------- Coram : Hon Yang CJ, Power VP Date of Hearing : 2 May 1996 Date of Judgment : 2 May 1996 ----------------------

J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Hon Yang, CJ: This is the judgment of the court. The applicant was convicted after trial to assisting the passage within Hong Kong of an unauthorized entrant and sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment. He was also convicted on his own plea to attempting to export unmanifested cargo and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently, thereby making a total of two years and nine months. These sentences were imposed on 17 1995. He did not lodge the notice for application to appeal until 4 December 1995. He was therefore out of time. We note that in another division of this court, in the case of R. v. Kwok Yung, Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1995, that court in dealing with exactly the same facts reduced the sentence of Kwok Yung. The sentence was reduced to one of six months for assisting the passage within Hong Kong of an unauthorized entrant and the sentence of 12 months for attempting to export unmanifested cargo was ordered to stay. The two sentences were to be served consecutively. The totality for the co accused was therefore reduced to two years. There is nothing in the facts of the case to show that the culpability of this applicant is any worse than that of Kwok Yung. The facts were that these men assisted the passage within Hong Kong of an illegal immigrant to go back to China.

This applicant was seen sitting at the stern and steering the vessel together with the illegal immigrant and Kwok Yung. There were boxes of computer parts on board, the subject matter of the second charge. The applicant, the first accused, was the master of the vessel whilst the second accused was the owner. In the circumstances, we do not feel a disparity of sentences is justified. We therefore allow the application, treat the application as the hearing of the appeal and allow the appeal. We reduce the sentence on the first charge from one of two years and nine months to six months, this to run concurrently with the twelve months on the second charge. The totality is therefore reduced to one year. Upon following the sentences in Kwok Yung (supra), I should have ordered the two sentences in the present case to run consecutively. However, by a slip, I announced that the sentences were to run concurrently. When Crown Counsel pointed out my error, the applicant was already on his way out of the court. In the circumstances we were of the view that he would suffer a very natural sense of grievance if we were to order the two sentences to run consecutively. We therefore refrained from making the order which we were undoubtedly entitled to make, and allowed the applicant to have the benefit of my error. ( T L Yang ) ( N P Power ) Chief Justice Vice President Applicant - in person Mr Derek Pang of the Attorney General's Chambers for Crown/Respondent -

PAGE - @\\SERVER\HP LaserJet 4 Plus (Copy 2) Ne01: winspool HP LaserJet 4 Plus \\SERVER\HP LaserJet 4 Plus (Co \\SERVER\HP LaserJet 4 Plus (Co & 6"

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, Supreme Court Normal Microsoft Word 8.0 judiciary

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Title _PID_GUID Upload

UPLOAD Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

R. v. Kwok Yung, Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1995 (Court of Appeal)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.