DCCC241/2022

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 邓浩坚、吴嘉荣、黃映彥 - 法院：區域法院 (DC) - 法官：郭啟安 - 判決日期：2022年12月19日 ### 案情摘要 三名內地被告人利用一艘缺乏基本安全設備（無滅火裝置、救生設備不足且無航行燈）的快艇，在香港水域從另一艘船上卸載約 4,491 公斤急凍豬肚，企圖將其運回內地。第一被告擔任舵手，第二及第三被告負責拉纜及裝貨。三人最終被水警截停。第一被告並無相關船隻執照，僅憑自學及手機導航操作。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案涉及兩項主要 legal issue：第一，三名被告是否違反《進出口條例》企圖輸出未列艙單貨物；第二，第一被告作為舵手，在缺乏安全設備且無執照的情況下深夜駕駛快艇，是否構成「危害他人在海上的安全」。辯方主要就量刑起點 (starting point) 及是否應予輕判提出求情，強調被告人經濟困難且首次認罪。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，儘管貨物是運往內地，但缺乏冷凍設備在初夏運送凍肉會危害公眾健康，不能忽視。關於第一項控罪，法官根據貨物性質、數量及價值，設定 15 個月的量刑起點，並因及時認罪給予三分之一折扣。針對《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第 27(2) 條的加刑申請，法官考慮到罪行普遍性及公眾損害，決定加刑 20%。對於第二項控罪，法官雖認定快艇不適宜操作，但考慮到第一被告在截查時配合停船，未有魯莽駕駛，故將量刑基準定為 9 個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Lum Shui Kwai HCMA 970/1999 以及 DCCC 1061/2017, DCCC 490/2020, DCCC 514/2020, DCCC 1161/2021, DCCC 1108/2020 等案例作為量刑參考，特別是關於走私貨物價值與量刑起點的關聯。 ### 裁決與命令 第一至第三被告就第一項控罪均被判處監禁 12 個月（含加刑）。第一被告就第二項控罪被判處監禁 6 個月，其中 3 個月與第一項控罪同期執行。第一被告總刑期為 15 個月，其餘兩名被告為 12 個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了即使走私貨物目的地為內地，若涉及食品安全風險，法庭仍會視之為損害公眾利益。同時，在危害海上安全罪中，被告在警方截查時的配合程度（如未高速逃逸）會成為減輕量刑的考慮因素。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Deng Haojian, Wu Jiarong, and Huang Yingyan - Court: District Court (DC) - Judge: Kwong Chi An - Date of Judgment: 19 December 2022 ### Factual Background Three Mainland Chinese nationals used a speedboat to illegally transport 4,491 kg of frozen pork stomach from a vessel in Hong Kong waters back to Mainland China. The speedboat lacked essential safety equipment, including fire extinguishers, adequate life-saving devices, and navigation lights. The first defendant acted as the helmsman without a license, while the other two assisted with mooring and loading. They were intercepted by the Marine Police. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were: (1) whether the defendants attempted to export unmanifested cargo contrary to the Import and Export Ordinance; and (2) whether the first defendant endangered the safety of others at sea by operating an unfit vessel. The defense argued for leniency based on the defendants' poor financial backgrounds, lack of prior convictions, and early guilty pleas. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge determined that transporting frozen meat without refrigeration in early summer posed a public health risk. For the first charge, a starting point of 15 months was set based on the cargo's nature and value, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea. Pursuant to s.27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, a 20% sentence enhancement was applied due to the prevalence of such crimes. For the second charge, the judge considered the first defendant's cooperation with police during interception as a mitigating factor, setting the baseline at 9 months. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The court referred to HKSAR v Lum Shui Kwai HCMA 970/1999 and several District Court cases (DCCC 1061/2017, DCCC 490/2020, DCCC 514/2020, DCCC 1161/2021, DCCC 1108/2020) to determine the appropriate sentencing starting points for smuggling based on cargo value. ### Decision & Orders All three defendants were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the first charge (including enhancement). The first defendant received 6 months' imprisonment for the second charge, with 3 months to run concurrently. Total sentence: 15 months for the first defendant and 12 months for the others. ### Key Takeaways The judgment underscores that smuggling food items without proper preservation is a risk to public health regardless of the destination. It also highlights that a defendant's conduct during police interception (e.g., not attempting to flee at high speed) can mitigate the sentence for endangering safety at sea. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.