TANG TSZ CHIN v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 22
(Criminal)

___________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Wong J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before His Honour Judge Gould in t District Court to a charge of assisting the passage within Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants and was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 5 months. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The facts were that on the night of 17th February this year, a motorized sampan, with no lights on, was heading towards Hong Kong Ron Mainland China. It was sighted by Marine police officers on patrol in the waters of Wong Chuk Kok Hoi, Sha Tau Kok. The applicant was seen to at the stern, controlling the steering and the engine. There were a total of unauthorized entrants on board: consisting of 3 males and 8 females. They were sitting in the compartment of the vessel with their heads hanging down.

3. The unauthorized entrants had paid between RMB1,000 to 1,500 each to different snakeheads in Mainland China. Under caution the applicant told the police that he was employed by a man called Chan Chai to bring these unauthorized entrants to Hong Kong for RMB400.

4. Before us, he asked for a reduction of the sentence on the ground that he has aged grand-parents, parents and brothers and sisters.

5. We have carefully considered the record and the reasons for sentence given by the judge. He took into consideration of the fact that the sampan was seaworthy, and there was no particularly grave risk to the safety of the unauthorized entrants. They were not in a sealed or hidden compartment. There were also no children or pregnant women on board. We are satisfied that a sentence of 3 years and 5 months is in no way manifestly excessive or wrong in principle In the circumstances, although we have some sympathy for this applicant, the sentence imposed on him is, nevertheless, in our judgment, a proper one, and it is not one that we should interfere. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused.

Representation:

Mr. B. Ryan, Counsel for the Crown.

Appellant (Tang Tsz-chin) in person.