Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

People smuggling

  • 17 Sept 2008

    HKSAR v. LAM SHUI SAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM SHUI SAI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC402/2007

    The appeal was dismissed because the appellant abandoned his challenge to conviction and the appellate court held the sentence of five years six months was within the appropriate range given the appellant's role as steersman, the vessel's unseaworthiness and the seriousness of carrying unauthorised entrants; the trial judge took relevant factors into account and did not err in principle.

  • 14 Mar 1997

    R. v. PHAM DUY SON and Others

    Citation
    R. v. PHAM DUY SON and Others
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC631/1996

    The Court refused the applications for leave to appeal against sentence: it held the judge erred in departing from established tariffs applicable to ship-based illegal entry (5 years captain, 4 years crew) and that the sentences imposed were in fact too lenient, but exercised mercy and declined to interfere with the individual sentences; leave out of time was granted to Luu but his substantive appeal was refused.

  • 13 Sept 1994

    THE QUEEN v. TANG TSZ CHIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TANG TSZ CHIN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC224/1994

    The sentence was not manifestly excessive and will not be disturbed because, on the facts, the vessel was seaworthy, there was no particular grave risk to the unauthorized entrants, no sealed or hidden compartments, no children or pregnant women on board, and the term imposed fell within the appropriate sentencing range for assisting passage of unauthorized entrants.

  • 17 Sept 1992

    R. v. CHAN MUK-SHING

    Citation
    R. v. CHAN MUK-SHING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC271/1992

    Appellate court held that the appropriate sentence is six years' imprisonment: adopting a five year starting point, add one year for concealment in compartments (not 1.5 years as below), add one year for technical unseaworthiness, and allow a more generous reduction for the guilty plea, reducing the original seven year sentence to six years.

  • 12 Mar 1992

    R. v. LEE KIN MING

    Citation
    R. v. LEE KIN MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC536/1991

    The court held that although the applicant's guilty plea, cooperation and personal circumstances merited mitigation, the offences were sufficiently serious and the sentences imposed (2.5 years on each of seven charges to run concurrently) were within accepted guidelines; therefore no further reduction was warranted and leave to appeal was refused.

  • 19 Nov 1991

    THE QUEEN v. NG KIT YUEN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. NG KIT YUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC118/1991

    Where illegal immigrants are concealed in a compartment from which escape would be difficult and/or the vessel is unseaworthy creating a grave risk to life, those circumstances are distinct aggravating factors that increase the gravity of the offence; the court endorsed a baseline of five years (per Lam Kon-man) and held that two years may be added for each aggravating factor (yielding starting points such as seven years for one factor and nine years for both); the trial judge's starting point was too low but the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the six-year sentence was upheld.

  • 5 Oct 1990

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN PUI HONG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN PUI HONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC232/1990

    The Court held the judge erred in not giving practical effect to the applicant's plea of guilty; given the limited participation (one entrant) and minimal financial reward, the original sentence of four years was manifestly excessive and was therefore reduced to three years imprisonment.

  • 22 Dec 1980

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LO WAN-KEUNG

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LO WAN-KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR13/1980

    The Court held the original sentences were manifestly inadequate given the planned commercial nature of the offences and the legislative and societal context; in AR13 the one year sentence for aiding passage of 11 unauthorised entrants was set aside and substituted with two years imprisonment; in AR14 the three year sentences for ownership/operation of the vessel transporting 31 unauthorised entrants were set aside and substituted with five years imprisonment each. Sentencing must reflect gravity, deterrence and updated policy.