A A
B B
DCCC 718/2022
C [2023] HKDC 1427 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 718 OF 2022
F F
G ———————— G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LO CHUN YIN I
————————
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K Lo K
Date: 4 October 2023
L L
Present: Ms Law Lai Ming, Karen, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Chu Wai Kei, instructed by Yip, Tse & Tang, assigned by M
the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] Assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorized
O entrants (協助未獲授權進境者在香港境內的旅程) O
P P
——————————————
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R —————————————— R
S S
1. The defendant was convicted of assisting the passage within
T Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants, contrary to section 37D(1)(a) of the T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 on his own plea and agreement to
C Amended Summary of Facts. C
D D
2. Upon application by the prosecution, Charge 2 was withdrawn
E and Charge 3 was put on court file and not to be proceeded with without E
leave of the court.
F F
G Facts G
H H
3. At around 10:33 pm on 29 December 2021, a suspicious
I vessel approached Sham Wat, Lantau. Police officers were deployed to I
attend the scene by vehicle.
J J
K 4. At around 11:23 pm on the same day, they spotted a light K
goods vehicle bearing registration number RY6428 (“the Van”) parked at
L L
Sham Wat Road junction, Tung O Ancient Trail near Lamppost V7620,
M Lantau, New Territories, in Hong Kong. A male was sitting at the driver’s M
seat of the Van. In the meantime, the defendant was seen escorting a group
N N
of 4 women to board the Van.
O O
5. Upon interception, the defendant was found to be picking up
P P
3 unauthorized entrants, who were unable to produce identification
Q Q
documents, at an unknown shore near Sham Wat and leading them to the
R
Van for onward trip to the urban area. R
S S
6. The defendant was arrested. The Immigration Department
T
confirmed that there was no record of the 3 entrants formally entering Hong T
Kong.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C Criminal Record C
D D
7. The defendant has 5 previous criminal records involving
E convictions of 7 charges, none similar to the present charge. E
F F
Mitigation
G G
8. The defendant is aged 33, married, used to work as a casual
H H
worker, waiter and sailor. At the time of offence, he was unemployed. He
I used to earn around $10,000 per month. He lives with his parents. His I
wife and 2 sons live in the mainland.
J J
K 9. The defendant’s last conviction was on 10 February 2022. It K
related to a gambling offence committed during the time when he was
L L
granted police bail in relation to the present case.
M M
10. Defence counsel submitted that the said gambling offence is
N N
not a serious offence, and he asked this court not to aggravate his sentence
O because of the proximity in time between his last conviction and the present O
offence.
P P
Q Q
11. He referred this court to the cases of: -
R R
1
(1) HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin;
S S
(2) HKSAR v Yeung Wui and others;2
T T
1
CACC 357/2004, 2 February 2005
2
U CACC 415/2004, 18 March 2005 U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(3) HKSAR v Chan Lai Choi;3 and
C (4) 香港特別行政區 訴 賴奮仁及另三人.4 C
D D
12. Defence counsel submitted that the defendant was seen
E escorting a group of women to board the van for onward trip to the urban E
area. There was no evidence that he was in the boat or in the vessel. He
F F
submitted that the present case is akin to the case of Chan Lai Choi and 賴
G 奮 仁 . He asked this court to consider 3 years’ imprisonment as the G
H sentencing starting point. H
I I
13. He also handed to this court a mitigation letter from the
J defendant. He urged this court to give the defendant leniency by reason of J
his guilty plea and his background.
K K
L Discussion L
M M
14. Before sentencing, this court has considered the mitigation
N submission, authorities submitted by defence counsel as well as the N
mitigation letter from the defendant.
O O
P 15. On conviction upon indictment of Charge 1, a person is liable P
to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.
Q Q
R 16. This court accepts that the facts of the case is similar to that R
in the Chan Lai Choi case. There is no concrete evidence that the defendant
S S
was involved in the bringing-in of the 3 unlawful entrants into Hong Kong.
T T
3
CACC 166/1997, 19 February 1998
4
U DCCC 791/2018, 6 December 2019 U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
I would adopt the sentencing starting point in the Chan Lai Choi case, ie
C the appropriate sentencing starting point for this charge is 3 years’ C
imprisonment.
D D
E 17. The defendant committed the gambling offence whilst he was E
on police bail for this case. I do not think this is appropriate for this court
F F
to consider that as an aggravating factor as the same should have been
G considered by the sentencing court in the gambling offence, if necessary. G
H H
18. The defendant has pleaded guilty. This is the most valid
I mitigating factor, for which he is entitled to one-third sentencing discount. I
He is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this offence.
J J
K K
L L
( K Lo )
M
Deputy District Judge M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V