CHEUNG CHAU MING v. R.

CACC000499/1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 499
(Criminal)

______________

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	CHEUNG CHAU MING

______________

 

Coram: Hon. Silke, V.-P., Litton and Bokhary, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 22 March 1994

Date of delivery: 22 March 1994

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Litton, J.A.:

1. This applicant CHEUNG Chau-ming was convicted by His Honour Judge Hawkes in the District Court on one charge of being a member of a crew of a ship which entered Hong Kong with unauthorised entrants on board contrary to Section 37C(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. The offence occurred on 10 June 1993 when a fishing vessel, the "Dongguan 05113", was intercepted by the Marine Police. The applicant was at the wheel of the vessel and when asked by the police to produce the registration book of the vessel he produced it. The applicant subsequently made two cautioned statements, one when on board the vessel and later at the Regional Crimes Unit Tsim Sha Tsui. At first he said that the vessel belonged to his friend, the first Defendant. Later he said it belonged to one YIU Chi- cheung of Dongguan. In his cautioned statements he clearly admitted that he worked as a crew member and had done so since April 1992. He also admitted that he was personally responsible for shipping the three females on board knowing that they had no permission to enter Hong Kong.

3. At the trial the applicant gave evidence concerning the admissibility of the two cautioned statements but did not give evidence on the general issue. Upon all the evidence before the court including the two cautioned statements, the District Judge convicted the applicant. The applicant on his application for leave to appeal now says that he was not a crew member but was merely a passenger and that he was told by the owner of the vessel to tell the police, if intercepted, that he was a crew member. That was not the case which was put in the court below even though he was represented by counsel.

4. In our view, there are no merits whatever in this application and it must therefore be refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person

D.G. Saw (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent