DCCC409/2012 HKSAR v.LIN YONGZHONG AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC409/2012
HKSAR v.LIN YONGZHONG AND OTHERS
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok2/8/2012
DCCC409/2012
A A
DCCC409/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 409 OF 2012
C C
--------------------
D HKSAR D
v.
E E
LIN Yongzhong (D1)
XUE Dehui (D2)
F F
HE Erren (D3)
G G
--------------------
H Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok H
Date: 3 August 2012 at 5:38 pm
I
Present: Mr Raymond PIERCE, Counsel on fiat for HKSAR I
Mr CHAN W.S., Raymond instructed by Messrs Chong, Fu &
Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1 and
J D3. J
Mr. CHENG Choong Chin instructed by Messrs S.H. Chan &
Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
K K
Offence: (1),(3) & (5) Using a false travel document for the
L purpose of Part II of the Immigration Ordinance (為施 L
行《入境條例》第II部而使用虛假的旅行證件)
(7) Conspiracy to obtain services by deception (串謀以欺
M M
騙手段取得服務)
N N
---------------------
O Reasons for Sentence O
P --------------------- P
Q Q
1. In this case, there are 7 charges involving 3
R defendants. All of them plead guilty to Charge 7 which is for R
the offence of conspiracy to obtain services by deception,
S contrary to section 18A of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210, and S
sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. In
T T
addition, D1 pleads guilty to Charge 1, D2 pleads guilty to
Charge 3, and D3 pleads guilty to Charge 5. Each of these
U U
1
V V
A charges is for the offence of using a forged travel document for A
the purpose of Part II of the Immigration Ordinance, contrary to
B section 42(2)(b) and punishable under section 42(4) of the B
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115. The 3 defendants also face
C C
Charges 2, 4 and 6 respectively. Each of these charges is for
the offence of making a false representation to an Immigration
D D
Assistant lawfully acting under or in the execution of Part II
E of the Immigration Ordinance, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of E
the Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115. In light of the
F defendants’ pleas, the prosecution decides not to proceed with F
these charges. These charges are therefore left in the court
G G
file and shall not be proceeded with unless with leave of the
court.
H H
Facts
I I
2. All defendants are nationals from the People’s
J J
Republic of China (“PRC”) living in the Fujian Province. They
wanted to go to Australia to obtain employment. A Taiwanese
K K
known to them by the nickname of “Lo Chan” agreed to traffick
L them from Fujian into Australia via Hong Kong at the cost of L
RMB$200,000 per person. They would start making payment by
M instalments when they succeeded in obtaining employment in M
Brisbane.
N N
3. Sometime before 30 March 2012, each defendant gave two
O photographs of himself, together with his valid PRC passport, to O
Lo Chan. Later, Lo Chan returned to each of them his PRC
P P
passport with a visa for entry into Thailand, together with an
airline ticket for travel on board a Cathay Pacific flight from
Q Q
Hong Kong to Bangkok on 30 March 2012. None of the defendants
R intended to go to Bangkok. They just wanted to get into the R
restricted area of the departure hall at the Hong Kong
S International Airport where they would collect forged Taiwanese S
passports and boarding passes for travel on board a Qantas
T T
flight to Brisbane in the evening.
U U
2
V V
A 4. On 30 March 2012, the 3 defendants travelled by ferry A
from Shekou to Hong Kong International Airport. They used their
B valid PRC passports to enter Hong Kong as transit passengers en B
route to Bangkok. For that purpose, they were allowed to stay
C C
in the restricted zone of the departure hall of the Hong Kong
International Airport.
D D
5. Inside the departure hall, pursuant to the
E E
instructions given by Lo Chan, each defendant collected from a
F
location near Gate 21 one forged Taiwanese passport and a F
boarding pass for Qantas flight QF98 to Brisbane that evening.
G These forged passports each bore the photograph of one of the G
defendants, but the personal particulars in the passports did
H not relate to any of them but to three Taiwanese males who H
arrived at Hong Kong earlier that day from Kaohsiung onboard
I I
Dragonair flight KA453. Each defendant had examined the forged
passport that bore his photographs and realized that the
J J
personal particulars in the passport did not relate to him.
K K
6. Although each defendant was aware that the Taiwanese
L passport bearing his photograph was a forgery, they armed L
themselves with the forged passports, together with the boarding
M passes for boarding QF98, with a view to boarding the plane to M
continue with the illegal journey. I was told in mitigation
N N
that the defendants had not actually presented the forged
passports or the boarding passes to the airline staff because
O O
they were intercepted by officers of the Hong Kong Immigration
P
Department before they could do so. Upon questioning by the P
officers during departure immigration examination, each
Q defendant tendered the forged passport bearing his photograph, Q
and falsely claimed to be the person whose details appeared in
R the passport. They claimed to have come from Kaohsiung, and R
produced boarding passes bearing the same name as in their
S S
respective forged passport for boarding KA453 and QF98.
T T
7. The defendants were all arrested. Each of them
admitted the offences under caution.
U U
3
V V
A 8. Investigations reveal that the three Taiwanese A
nationals whose personal particulars appeared in the three
B forged passports travelled from Kaohsiung to Hong Kong on 30 B
March 2012 and entered Hong Kong through the immigration channel
C C
at Hong Kong International Airport. However, all of them
departed Hong Kong through the Lowu immigration channel on the
D D
same day. Qantas Airways confirmed that reservation had been
E made in the names of these three Taiwanese nationals for the E
flight QF98 from Hong Kong to Brisbane on 30 March 2012.
F F
Criminal record
G G
9. All defendants have a clear criminal record.
H H
Personal and family background
I I
10. D1 is 41 years old, married, living with his wife, son
J
aged 17, daughter aged 6, father aged 80 and mother aged 77. He J
worked as a farmer and earned about RMB$1,200 per month. He had
K received only primary one education in the mainland. His two K
children are still studying. His parents are retired farmers.
L L
11. D2 is 42 years old, married, living with his wife,
M daughter aged 13, son aged 11 and father. He was a farmer but M
also took up part time job in construction site if work was
N N
available.
O O
12. D3 is 47 years old, married, living with his wife aged
45, son aged 20, daughter aged 18, and his two parents both aged
P P
85. His son is unemployed. His daughter is studying. His
Q
parents are retired farmers. Q
Mitigation
R R
13. Learned counsel for D1 and D3 informed this Court that
S S
the two defendants committed the offences for economic reasons.
T They just wanted to earn a little bit more in Australia so as to T
improve the family living condition. Both of them received
U little education and had little social experience as they had U
4
V V
A been farmers in Fujian for the whole of their life. Hence they A
did not know details of the scheme, and they acted at the
B direction of Lo Chan. They did not know the serious nature of B
the offences and their consequences. They were sole breadwinner
C C
of their families. Their parents were old with poor health. It
was said that D3’s mother was suffering from ill health. A
D D
medical book was produced on the health condition of D3’s
E mother, but the handwriting was illegible, and counsel was E
unable to assist this Court with its contents. Counsel said
F that, according to D3, his mother was suffering from cancer all F
over her body, but D3 was unable to provide further details.
G G
Counsel stressed that D1 and D3 pleaded guilty at the earliest
opportunity, that they gave no thought to the scheme and had
H H
been acting like puppet of Lo Chan because of their limited
I
education and life experience, and that they were very I
remorseful and had been very cooperative with the authorities.
J He pleaded for maximum leniency for each defendant. J
K 14. Learned counsel for D2 submitted that D2 was hard K
pressed by economic burden. He was the sole breadwinner of the
L family. His wife was suffering from heart problem, and his L
father was now seriously ill because of terminal cancer.
M M
Because of their health problem, a lot of money was spent on
medical expenses. D2 therefore had to commit the offence with a
N N
view to getting better pay. Counsel pleaded for leniency for D2
O on the ground that he pleaded guilty and had been cooperative O
with the authority.
P P
Reasons for sentence
Q Q
15. The 3 defendants were participants in a conspiracy for
R human trafficking in which they were to be trafficked to R
Australia for obtaining employment. Pursuant to this illegal
S scheme, the defendants committed the offences they are now S
convicted of. Even though they were not the traffickers but the
T T
persons to be trafficked, their offences were still very serious
for a number of reasons.
U U
5
V V
A 16. First, the offences involved sophisticated planning A
and arrangement with international dimension. Second, the
B defendants sought to undermine not only the immigration laws of B
Hong Kong but also those of other jurisdictions. Third, they
C C
sought to travel on aircraft when they were not authorized to do
so. Fourth, they used Hong Kong as a gangway for illegal
D D
immigration and tarnished the international reputation of Hong
E Kong. Fifth, they might cause inconvenience to lawful visitors E
from Hong Kong because immigration authorities of other
F countries might feel sceptical of them even though they are F
holding lawful travel documents.
G G
17. In addition, the principle of comity of nations
H requires Hong Kong to punish and deter illegal immigration. H
Hong Kong as a key airport in the world must be seen to tackle
I I
these offences in such a way so as to deter their commission.
J J
18. For these reasons, unless there are special
circumstances in the commission of the offences or there are
K K
exceptionally strong mitigating factor which must be rare, the
L only appropriate sentencing option is imprisonment even if the L
offender pleads guilty and has a clear record.
M M
19. I have considered very carefully each plea in
N mitigation. In my view, this is just one of the ordinary cases N
where a poor mainlander committed these offences with a view to
O earning more money overseas for the benefit of his family. O
Counsel for D1 and D3 submitted that neither D1 nor D3 had
P P
participated in hatching the illegal scheme and they were just
being persuaded by Lo Chan to go on this illegal adventure. It
Q Q
was said that they acted just like puppet of Lo Chan. There is
R no evidence supporting this allegation. Furthermore, as R
conceded by counsel, both of them knew the framework of the
S illegal scheme. In my view, D1 and D3 were well aware that S
forged passport would be used to conceal their true identities
T T
in order to go to Australia, or else they would not have
provided their photographs to Lo Chan. They must also be aware
U U
6
V V
A of the scheme of switching identities with the Taiwanese because A
they had only visa and air tickets to go to Bangkok when their
B true destination was Brisbane, so that someone must have to get B
the boarding passes for them. In any event, they had promised
C C
to pay a huge sum of money in return for the services to be
provided by Lo Chan. Even if they did not know the details of
D D
the scheme, it must be the case that they had just left the
E execution of the scheme entirely to Lo Chan, which was precisely E
what they were paying for. If that was the reason why they did
F not have knowledge of the details of the scheme, that in my view F
will not amount to mitigation.
G G
20. All in all, I find that there are no exceptional
H circumstances in the case, and there is simply no ground not to H
impose a term of imprisonment on any of the defendants.
I I
21. As to the quantum of sentence, I have been referred to
J J
the sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Browne in Case No.
DCCC732/2010 and HKSAR v He Wenyou [2009] 3 HKLRD 445. I am of
K K
the view that the facts of this case were virtually identical to
L those in He Wenyou. I shall therefore adopt the same starting L
points as the Court of Appeal in that case, i.e. 27 months’
M imprisonment for the using false travel document charge and 32 M
months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy charge.
N N
22. Each defendant committed the offences because of
O economic reason. This is only an explanation why they committed O
the offences, but it is not mitigation.
P P
23. Each defendant claims that their parents are old with
Q Q
poor health. D2 claims that his father is suffering from
terminal cancer. D3 also claims that his mother is suffering
R R
from cancer all over her body. However, there is insufficient
S medical proof to substantiate their allegations. Furthermore, S
it is quite clear that at the time when the defendants left home
T and embarked upon this illegal venture, they would have deprived T
themselves of any chance to go home to take care of or to see
U U
their ill-health or even dying parent because it is
7
V V
A inconceivable that they could go back to their homes within A
short period of time. I shall not reduce their sentence on this
B ground. B
C 24. It is quite clear that the defendants will serve a C
term of imprisonment, and this will cause hardship to their
D D
families. However, this is not a ground to lower their
sentences. The defendants must be well aware that if they were
E E
caught for committing these offences, they were at risk of
F
losing the opportunity to support their families for some time, F
and yet they ignored or belittled the risk.
G G
25. The only valuable mitigating factor is their guilty
H plea. They are entitled to be given the usual one-third H
discount. There is no ground for suspending the operation of
I the prison term. I
J 26. I agree that the sentences to be imposed on each J
defendant should run concurrently.
K K
27. For these reasons, the defendants are sentenced as
L follows: L
M D1: Charge 1: imprisonment for 18 months; M
Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two
N N
sentences are to run concurrently.
D2: Charge 3: imprisonment for 18 months;
O O
Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two
P sentences are to run concurrently. P
D3: Charge 5: imprisonment for 18 months;
Q Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two Q
sentences are to run concurrently.
R R
S S
W.K. Kwok
Deputy District Judge
T T
U U
8
V V
A A
DCCC409/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 409 OF 2012
C C
--------------------
D HKSAR D
v.
E E
LIN Yongzhong (D1)
XUE Dehui (D2)
F F
HE Erren (D3)
G G
--------------------
H Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok H
Date: 3 August 2012 at 5:38 pm
I
Present: Mr Raymond PIERCE, Counsel on fiat for HKSAR I
Mr CHAN W.S., Raymond instructed by Messrs Chong, Fu &
Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1 and
J D3. J
Mr. CHENG Choong Chin instructed by Messrs S.H. Chan &
Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
K K
Offence: (1),(3) & (5) Using a false travel document for the
L purpose of Part II of the Immigration Ordinance (為施 L
行《入境條例》第II部而使用虛假的旅行證件)
(7) Conspiracy to obtain services by deception (串謀以欺
M M
騙手段取得服務)
N N
---------------------
O Reasons for Sentence O
P --------------------- P
Q Q
1. In this case, there are 7 charges involving 3
R defendants. All of them plead guilty to Charge 7 which is for R
the offence of conspiracy to obtain services by deception,
S contrary to section 18A of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210, and S
sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. In
T T
addition, D1 pleads guilty to Charge 1, D2 pleads guilty to
Charge 3, and D3 pleads guilty to Charge 5. Each of these
U U
1
V V
A charges is for the offence of using a forged travel document for A
the purpose of Part II of the Immigration Ordinance, contrary to
B section 42(2)(b) and punishable under section 42(4) of the B
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115. The 3 defendants also face
C C
Charges 2, 4 and 6 respectively. Each of these charges is for
the offence of making a false representation to an Immigration
D D
Assistant lawfully acting under or in the execution of Part II
E of the Immigration Ordinance, contrary to section 42(1)(a) of E
the Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115. In light of the
F defendants’ pleas, the prosecution decides not to proceed with F
these charges. These charges are therefore left in the court
G G
file and shall not be proceeded with unless with leave of the
court.
H H
Facts
I I
2. All defendants are nationals from the People’s
J J
Republic of China (“PRC”) living in the Fujian Province. They
wanted to go to Australia to obtain employment. A Taiwanese
K K
known to them by the nickname of “Lo Chan” agreed to traffick
L them from Fujian into Australia via Hong Kong at the cost of L
RMB$200,000 per person. They would start making payment by
M instalments when they succeeded in obtaining employment in M
Brisbane.
N N
3. Sometime before 30 March 2012, each defendant gave two
O photographs of himself, together with his valid PRC passport, to O
Lo Chan. Later, Lo Chan returned to each of them his PRC
P P
passport with a visa for entry into Thailand, together with an
airline ticket for travel on board a Cathay Pacific flight from
Q Q
Hong Kong to Bangkok on 30 March 2012. None of the defendants
R intended to go to Bangkok. They just wanted to get into the R
restricted area of the departure hall at the Hong Kong
S International Airport where they would collect forged Taiwanese S
passports and boarding passes for travel on board a Qantas
T T
flight to Brisbane in the evening.
U U
2
V V
A 4. On 30 March 2012, the 3 defendants travelled by ferry A
from Shekou to Hong Kong International Airport. They used their
B valid PRC passports to enter Hong Kong as transit passengers en B
route to Bangkok. For that purpose, they were allowed to stay
C C
in the restricted zone of the departure hall of the Hong Kong
International Airport.
D D
5. Inside the departure hall, pursuant to the
E E
instructions given by Lo Chan, each defendant collected from a
F
location near Gate 21 one forged Taiwanese passport and a F
boarding pass for Qantas flight QF98 to Brisbane that evening.
G These forged passports each bore the photograph of one of the G
defendants, but the personal particulars in the passports did
H not relate to any of them but to three Taiwanese males who H
arrived at Hong Kong earlier that day from Kaohsiung onboard
I I
Dragonair flight KA453. Each defendant had examined the forged
passport that bore his photographs and realized that the
J J
personal particulars in the passport did not relate to him.
K K
6. Although each defendant was aware that the Taiwanese
L passport bearing his photograph was a forgery, they armed L
themselves with the forged passports, together with the boarding
M passes for boarding QF98, with a view to boarding the plane to M
continue with the illegal journey. I was told in mitigation
N N
that the defendants had not actually presented the forged
passports or the boarding passes to the airline staff because
O O
they were intercepted by officers of the Hong Kong Immigration
P
Department before they could do so. Upon questioning by the P
officers during departure immigration examination, each
Q defendant tendered the forged passport bearing his photograph, Q
and falsely claimed to be the person whose details appeared in
R the passport. They claimed to have come from Kaohsiung, and R
produced boarding passes bearing the same name as in their
S S
respective forged passport for boarding KA453 and QF98.
T T
7. The defendants were all arrested. Each of them
admitted the offences under caution.
U U
3
V V
A 8. Investigations reveal that the three Taiwanese A
nationals whose personal particulars appeared in the three
B forged passports travelled from Kaohsiung to Hong Kong on 30 B
March 2012 and entered Hong Kong through the immigration channel
C C
at Hong Kong International Airport. However, all of them
departed Hong Kong through the Lowu immigration channel on the
D D
same day. Qantas Airways confirmed that reservation had been
E made in the names of these three Taiwanese nationals for the E
flight QF98 from Hong Kong to Brisbane on 30 March 2012.
F F
Criminal record
G G
9. All defendants have a clear criminal record.
H H
Personal and family background
I I
10. D1 is 41 years old, married, living with his wife, son
J
aged 17, daughter aged 6, father aged 80 and mother aged 77. He J
worked as a farmer and earned about RMB$1,200 per month. He had
K received only primary one education in the mainland. His two K
children are still studying. His parents are retired farmers.
L L
11. D2 is 42 years old, married, living with his wife,
M daughter aged 13, son aged 11 and father. He was a farmer but M
also took up part time job in construction site if work was
N N
available.
O O
12. D3 is 47 years old, married, living with his wife aged
45, son aged 20, daughter aged 18, and his two parents both aged
P P
85. His son is unemployed. His daughter is studying. His
Q
parents are retired farmers. Q
Mitigation
R R
13. Learned counsel for D1 and D3 informed this Court that
S S
the two defendants committed the offences for economic reasons.
T They just wanted to earn a little bit more in Australia so as to T
improve the family living condition. Both of them received
U little education and had little social experience as they had U
4
V V
A been farmers in Fujian for the whole of their life. Hence they A
did not know details of the scheme, and they acted at the
B direction of Lo Chan. They did not know the serious nature of B
the offences and their consequences. They were sole breadwinner
C C
of their families. Their parents were old with poor health. It
was said that D3’s mother was suffering from ill health. A
D D
medical book was produced on the health condition of D3’s
E mother, but the handwriting was illegible, and counsel was E
unable to assist this Court with its contents. Counsel said
F that, according to D3, his mother was suffering from cancer all F
over her body, but D3 was unable to provide further details.
G G
Counsel stressed that D1 and D3 pleaded guilty at the earliest
opportunity, that they gave no thought to the scheme and had
H H
been acting like puppet of Lo Chan because of their limited
I
education and life experience, and that they were very I
remorseful and had been very cooperative with the authorities.
J He pleaded for maximum leniency for each defendant. J
K 14. Learned counsel for D2 submitted that D2 was hard K
pressed by economic burden. He was the sole breadwinner of the
L family. His wife was suffering from heart problem, and his L
father was now seriously ill because of terminal cancer.
M M
Because of their health problem, a lot of money was spent on
medical expenses. D2 therefore had to commit the offence with a
N N
view to getting better pay. Counsel pleaded for leniency for D2
O on the ground that he pleaded guilty and had been cooperative O
with the authority.
P P
Reasons for sentence
Q Q
15. The 3 defendants were participants in a conspiracy for
R human trafficking in which they were to be trafficked to R
Australia for obtaining employment. Pursuant to this illegal
S scheme, the defendants committed the offences they are now S
convicted of. Even though they were not the traffickers but the
T T
persons to be trafficked, their offences were still very serious
for a number of reasons.
U U
5
V V
A 16. First, the offences involved sophisticated planning A
and arrangement with international dimension. Second, the
B defendants sought to undermine not only the immigration laws of B
Hong Kong but also those of other jurisdictions. Third, they
C C
sought to travel on aircraft when they were not authorized to do
so. Fourth, they used Hong Kong as a gangway for illegal
D D
immigration and tarnished the international reputation of Hong
E Kong. Fifth, they might cause inconvenience to lawful visitors E
from Hong Kong because immigration authorities of other
F countries might feel sceptical of them even though they are F
holding lawful travel documents.
G G
17. In addition, the principle of comity of nations
H requires Hong Kong to punish and deter illegal immigration. H
Hong Kong as a key airport in the world must be seen to tackle
I I
these offences in such a way so as to deter their commission.
J J
18. For these reasons, unless there are special
circumstances in the commission of the offences or there are
K K
exceptionally strong mitigating factor which must be rare, the
L only appropriate sentencing option is imprisonment even if the L
offender pleads guilty and has a clear record.
M M
19. I have considered very carefully each plea in
N mitigation. In my view, this is just one of the ordinary cases N
where a poor mainlander committed these offences with a view to
O earning more money overseas for the benefit of his family. O
Counsel for D1 and D3 submitted that neither D1 nor D3 had
P P
participated in hatching the illegal scheme and they were just
being persuaded by Lo Chan to go on this illegal adventure. It
Q Q
was said that they acted just like puppet of Lo Chan. There is
R no evidence supporting this allegation. Furthermore, as R
conceded by counsel, both of them knew the framework of the
S illegal scheme. In my view, D1 and D3 were well aware that S
forged passport would be used to conceal their true identities
T T
in order to go to Australia, or else they would not have
provided their photographs to Lo Chan. They must also be aware
U U
6
V V
A of the scheme of switching identities with the Taiwanese because A
they had only visa and air tickets to go to Bangkok when their
B true destination was Brisbane, so that someone must have to get B
the boarding passes for them. In any event, they had promised
C C
to pay a huge sum of money in return for the services to be
provided by Lo Chan. Even if they did not know the details of
D D
the scheme, it must be the case that they had just left the
E execution of the scheme entirely to Lo Chan, which was precisely E
what they were paying for. If that was the reason why they did
F not have knowledge of the details of the scheme, that in my view F
will not amount to mitigation.
G G
20. All in all, I find that there are no exceptional
H circumstances in the case, and there is simply no ground not to H
impose a term of imprisonment on any of the defendants.
I I
21. As to the quantum of sentence, I have been referred to
J J
the sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Browne in Case No.
DCCC732/2010 and HKSAR v He Wenyou [2009] 3 HKLRD 445. I am of
K K
the view that the facts of this case were virtually identical to
L those in He Wenyou. I shall therefore adopt the same starting L
points as the Court of Appeal in that case, i.e. 27 months’
M imprisonment for the using false travel document charge and 32 M
months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy charge.
N N
22. Each defendant committed the offences because of
O economic reason. This is only an explanation why they committed O
the offences, but it is not mitigation.
P P
23. Each defendant claims that their parents are old with
Q Q
poor health. D2 claims that his father is suffering from
terminal cancer. D3 also claims that his mother is suffering
R R
from cancer all over her body. However, there is insufficient
S medical proof to substantiate their allegations. Furthermore, S
it is quite clear that at the time when the defendants left home
T and embarked upon this illegal venture, they would have deprived T
themselves of any chance to go home to take care of or to see
U U
their ill-health or even dying parent because it is
7
V V
A inconceivable that they could go back to their homes within A
short period of time. I shall not reduce their sentence on this
B ground. B
C 24. It is quite clear that the defendants will serve a C
term of imprisonment, and this will cause hardship to their
D D
families. However, this is not a ground to lower their
sentences. The defendants must be well aware that if they were
E E
caught for committing these offences, they were at risk of
F
losing the opportunity to support their families for some time, F
and yet they ignored or belittled the risk.
G G
25. The only valuable mitigating factor is their guilty
H plea. They are entitled to be given the usual one-third H
discount. There is no ground for suspending the operation of
I the prison term. I
J 26. I agree that the sentences to be imposed on each J
defendant should run concurrently.
K K
27. For these reasons, the defendants are sentenced as
L follows: L
M D1: Charge 1: imprisonment for 18 months; M
Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two
N N
sentences are to run concurrently.
D2: Charge 3: imprisonment for 18 months;
O O
Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two
P sentences are to run concurrently. P
D3: Charge 5: imprisonment for 18 months;
Q Charge 7: imprisonment for 21 months and 10 days; the two Q
sentences are to run concurrently.
R R
S S
W.K. Kwok
Deputy District Judge
T T
U U
8
V V