8 Jan 1999
The 5-year starting point was appropriate given the applicant was acting captain, immigrants were concealed in the forehold and the vessel lacked safety equipment; the 1/3 reduction for a guilty plea was properly applied; acting under orders/keeping a job is not mitigating; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
21 Aug 1998
The court held the correct starting point for these s.37C(1)(a) offences was 4 years; the presence of a pregnant passenger did not justify increasing the starting point; the Deputy Judge's adoption of a 5‑year starting point produced an excessive sentence and, coupled with disparity with a co‑defendant's sentence, warranted allowing the appeal and reducing each applicant's sentence to 3 years.
11 Apr 1997
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge was entitled to accept the applicants' signed statements as true and to find each knowingly was a crew member aware of a secret compartment containing unauthorised entrants, and the sentences were within lawful discretion given the seriousness and danger of the offence.
8 Feb 1996
The appellate court refused leave because the trial judge, who had seen and heard the witnesses, permissibly accepted the accomplice's evidence (finding him credible) and rejected the applicant's account; there was no basis for appellate interference on conviction, and the sentence was within a properly tempered range so further leniency was not warranted.
3 Nov 1995
The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's active role as steersman, the vessel's poor seaworthiness increasing gravity, and the trial judge's lawful application of a four-year starting point with an appropriate discount for guilty plea and custody; the claimed hearing impairment was disproved by specialist examination.
20 Sept 1995
The trial judge was entitled to accept the prosecution evidence and reject the applicant's account based on credibility; there was no basis for appellate interference with the conviction, and the sentence imposed was within the judge's proper discretion and therefore upheld.
7 Feb 1995
Taken cumulatively the objective facts (timing and manner of boarding, composition and appearance of persons boarded, absence of legitimate fishing evidence and other surrounding circumstances) supported the trial judge's conclusion that the applicant knew the persons were illegal entrants prior to the voyage; therefore the applicant failed to discharge the s.37C(2)(b) onus and the conviction was safe. Sentence was within range but reduced from four to three years to reflect lesser culpability of a crew member compared with the master.
28 Jul 1994
Under s.37C(1) Immigration Ordinance the correct sentencing framework is: a five year starting point for the captain/person in charge and for those who actively organized the illicit voyage; a four year starting point for crew members simpliciter; aggravating accretions (eg concealment endangering passengers, unseaworthiness) add to the starting point but apply to non-captain crew only if they actively participated in those aggravating circumstances; particulars should identify any person alleged to be captain; youth merits limited discount and does not justify substantial departure from the…
10 Mar 1994
Given the applicable starting point of 5 years and the mitigating factors already taken into account by the sentencing judge, the reduction to 2 years 9 months was a lenient and proper exercise of discretion; there is no basis to grant leave to appeal or to interfere with the sentence.
9 Apr 1992
The jury were entitled to reject the statutory defence because there was evidence, including the defendant's cautioned statement admitting knowledge of the concealed persons before sailing, from which a reasonable jury could find he knew; absent any trial defect the application for leave to appeal must be refused.