R v Feng Lin

The question of deportation was not raised before this Court. 43 It is convenient now to consider the statutory provisions relevant to the subject offence. Division 12 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 deals with offences in relation to entry into, and remaining in, Australia. 44 It is appropriate to consider both s 232A and s 233, bearing in mind certain discussion which took place before Viney DCJ. Those sections, are set out hereunder: -

232A Organising bringing groups of non-citizens into Australia A person who: (a) organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of a group of 5 or more people; and (b) does so knowing the people would become, upon entry into Australia, unlawful non-citizens; is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 20 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both

233 Persons concerned in bringing non-citizens into Australia in contravention of this Act or harbouring illegal entrants (1) A person shall not take any part in:

(a) the bringing or coming to Australia of a non-citizen under circumstances from which it might reasonably have been inferred that the non-citizen intended to enter Australia in contravention of this Act; (b) the concealing of a non-citizen with intent to enter Australia in contravention of this Act; or (c) the concealing of an unlawful non-citizen or a deportee with intent to prevent discovery by an officer. (2) A person must not knowingly or recklessly harbour an unlawful non-citizen, a removee or a deportee. Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both.

45 It is important to bear in mind that the elements of the offence under s 232A are different from the elements of the offence in s 233(1)(a). 46 Speaking generally, s 232A is concerned with persons who organise the bringing of groups of more than 5 persons, who are non-citizens, into Australia. 47 The reference in s 232A to a group of 5 or more people cannot lead, in my view, to the conclusion that s 233(1)(a) is confined to taking part in the bringing of a maximum of 4 non-citizens to Australia. In other words sections 232A and 233 are not cognate sections, and a sentencing Judge can obtain no assistance from a consideration of the provisions of s 232A when imposing a sentence for an offence under s 233. 48 This Court has been informed that this is the first prosecution in this State for an offence under s 233(1)(a) since the legislature increased the maximum penalty from 2 years to 10 years imprisonment. This amendment was effected by the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 which became effective on 22 July 1999.

49 When introducing the Bill into the House of Representatives, the Honourable Peter Slipper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) said (Hansard 30 June 1999 p 7992): - "The government is committed to protecting the integrity of the nation's borders and to stopping the work of people traffickers who think nothing of exploiting people with the false promise of entry into Australia." 50 The Honourable Con Sciacca, (Shadow Minister for Immigration) who supported the Bill, said during the course of the debate (at p 7993): - "Over the past 18 months Australia has increasingly been seen as a soft target to gangs of people traffickers in a number of countries. Overall in 1997-98 some 157 illegal immigrants arrived by sea on our shores. In 1998-99 this figure increased eightfold to 859, and more are coming every day. This increase in people smuggling in the operation of the so-called 'snakeheads', signifies that Australia's penalties for these offences do not go far enough to deter those who assist these criminal warlords on our shores. The amendments put forward today reflect the seriousness of these crimes and their cost to the government and to the Australian community. 51 Sentencing judges must necessarily be sensitive to the concern expressed by the Federal government at the increasing prevalence of people-smuggling into this country with its consequence of possible health problems, the cost of detection, law enforcement, detention, and the many other social problems associated with this illegal conduct. Of course, unhappily this is not a problem which is confined to Australia, although it must be acknowledged that Australia is particularly vulnerable to people-smuggling by reason of its extensive coastline. 52 However, as this case and other cases illustrate, the imposition of an appropriate penalty for this offence is one of considerable difficulty. It is helpful, therefore, to consider certain of the penalties which have been imposed in other Australian jurisdictions since the increased penalty under s 233(1)(a) came into effect. In each case the factual circumstances are considerably different from the subject case. However, some assistance may be gathered from two judgments. 53 The matter of The Queen v Guruapin and Others came before Riley J in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 22 November 1999 (SCC 99/19773, 99/19774, 99/20280, 99/20281, 99/20283). Here five citizens of the Republic of Indonesia were dealt with for offences under s 233(1)(a). Two of the offenders were sentenced in respect of offences which occurred on 26 August 1999 and which involved 12 non-citizens. Three of the offenders were sentenced in respect of offences which occurred on 30 August 1999 and which involved 24 non-citizens. Each offender pleaded guilty. Each of the prisoners was a fisherman of limited means who agreed to take part in a voyage on certain vessels from Indonesia to the Ashmore Reef carrying non-citizens who were intent on seeking entry into Australia. None was an organiser. Each had skills which could assist in getting the vessels to their destination. Each was motivated by an offer, which was to them, of significant financial benefit. 54 After taking into account s 16G of the Crimes Act, each of the offenders was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, to be released within 12 months upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. 55 Riley J said, in his remarks on sentence: - "It is not difficult to see why the offences are treated so seriously. Potential risks to the people of Australia are obvious and significant. Whilst the present offences are serious, they are far from the most serious contemplated by s 233(1)(a) of the Migration Act. Although the prisoners are at the end of the chain of persons involved in facilitating the journeys of these people from their country of origin to the shores of Australia, they are a vital part of that process. They provide the means by which the final leg of the journey is completed. It is through them that entry into Australia is achieved." 56 The matter of The Queen v Nursia and Others came before Bailey J in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 12 January 2000 (SCC99/21457, 99/214155, 99/20702, 99/20691, 99/20695, 99/20696, 99/20692, 99/20694). Again, the offenders were citizens of the Republic of Indonesia. Two of the offenders were sentenced in respect of offences which occurred on 17 September 1999 and which involved 4 non-citizens. Six of the offenders were sentenced in respect of offences which occurred on 31 August 1999 and which involved 86 non-citizens. Both of the voyages involved the Ashmore Reef as their destination. The first 2 offenders were street vendors from East Java who had been approached and had been offered the equivalent of AU$200-250 each to take 4 Iraqis (who were described to them as tourists) to Ashmore Reef. The other 6 offenders were fishermen from Kepang. The Master of the vessel was promised the equivalent of AU$300-375 and the remaining 5 crew were promised approximately two-thirds of this sum each. It was not suggested by the Crown that any of the offenders was an organiser in the ventures. Each pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and each was entitled to credit for co-operation. Only one had a prior criminal conviction. 57 The first 2 offenders were sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months and were ordered to be released after 10 months upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for 12 months. His Honour took as a starting point imprisonment for 3 years which was reduced to 2 years for mitigation, and which was further reduced under s 16G of the Crimes Act. 58 The remaining 5 offenders, with one exception, were sentenced to imprisonment for one year and 10 months, and were ordered to be released after 13 months upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for 18 months. In these cases the starting point was imprisonment for 4 years which was reduced to 2 years 8 months for assistance, and this was then further reduced under s 16G. The one offender who had a previous conviction for an offence under s 233(1)(a) was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months and was ordered to be released after one year and 5 months upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for 2 years. 59 During the course of his remarks on sentence, Bailey J said: - "It is my duty to give effect to the legislative intent. The penalties for such offences must be substantial and also must be increased from what has been a general range in the past. General deterrence must play an important role in determining appropriate sentences in the present circumstances. A clear message must be sent to those who are minded to engage in bringing non-citizens to this country that they can expect to face a very substantial penalty.'

60 Bailey J went on to say that there was no attempt to hide from the authorities or to disguise what the offenders were doing. His Honour said: - "The offences, whilst serious, are correctly described as 'people-trafficking' offences rather than 'people-smuggling'." 61 Before this Court the Crown sought to distinguish these cases on the basis that the subject case was not concerned with people-trafficking but with people-smuggling. It was the intention, it was argued, of the applicant to land the stowaways in Sydney with the aim of integrating them into the Australian community. 62 The fundamental point in the applicant's argument before this Court was that his Honour commenced his assessment of the appropriate penalty at too high a figure, namely 7 years as against a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. 63 The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that this is an offence in which the element of deterrence plays a predominant role in the sentencing process. The Court was reminded that s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act provides that in determining the sentence to be passed, in respect of any person for a Federal offence, a court must impose a sentence that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. A specific matter which must be taken into consideration is the nature and circumstances of the offence. In the current climate of community concern at the prevalence of people-smuggling and the problems of detection, it was submitted that his Honour was correct in commencing his assessment of appropriate penalty at a figure in the order of 7 years. 64 The question for this Court is whether the sentence imposed by his Honour was, balancing the objective and subjective circumstances, outside the sentencing discretion available to his Honour. Although, in his careful judgment, Judge Viney adverted to the various subjective matters, his Honour, in my respectful view, did not make sufficient allowance for them in the assessment of the appropriate head sentence. The subjective circumstances in this case may fairly be described as exceptional. They may be briefly summarised as follows: 65 Firstly, the conviction and consequential sentence must, at the very least constitute a serious disruption to the applicant's professional career as a Deck Officer. The chances of the applicant being re-employed by OOCL, or a company of its standing, must be considered to be minimal. This detriment is of such a serious nature to the applicant's chosen career (in which he had progressed thus far so commendably) that it operates as a very significant punishment in itself. 66 Secondly, the applicant has a prior excellent character. Prior to this lapse he had led an unblemished personal and professional life. Although the lapse was a serious one, the circumstances clearly demonstrate a certain naivety on his part. It may well be that he was depressed at the time, as he claims, as the result of his friend being drowned. 67 Thirdly, the applicant is required to serve his sentence in a foreign country. This separation from his family has (according to the evidence) already caused tensions. 68 Fourthly, there is the assistance which the applicant rendered to the authorities, with the consequent fear of reprisals upon his return to China. Although the Chinese authorities have not seen fit to provide the Australian authorities with the details which they seek in relation to Mr Chen, it is clear that Chen was arrested by the Chinese authorities based on information supplied by the applicant. The applicant could have done no more in this regard than he has done already in assisting the authorities. 69 Fifthly, the applicant may rely upon his plea of guilty at the earliest possible time. In the circumstances of this case, this plea has a significant utilitarian value because the Crown would have been required to rely upon evidence of overseas witnesses if the matter had proceeded to trial. The fact that the prospective overseas witnesses are seafarers would represent an additional complexity. There has been a clear demonstration of contrition on the part of the applicant and one can look upon his prospects of rehabilitation as excellent. I do not overlook that when the stowaways were detected in the cargo hold, the applicant sought to have his involvement in the matter covered up. 70 Sixthly, the applicant has conducted himself in an exemplary manner whilst incarcerated in New South Wales. Very significant evidence was before his Honour to this effect. 71 In a report dated 25 January 2000 by the Senior Education Officer at the Parramatta Correctional Complex, the following comment is made: - "Feng Lin continues to impress and to draw praise from teachers with his consistent quiet persistence, initiative, and courage to make the best of a difficult situation.

72 In addition to these subjective circumstances, his Honour was required, as his Honour did, to take into account the fact that in this State sentences are not subject to remission or reduction 73 Thus, giving full weight to the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for a strong deterrent element in the sentence, nevertheless when one balances with them the exceptional subjective circumstances, it leads to the conclusion, in my respectful view, that the sentence imposed by his Honour was outside the sentencing discretion available to him. 74 I would propose, therefore, the following orders: -

(i) Leave to appeal be granted and the appeal upheld;

(ii) The sentence imposed by his Honour be set aside and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to three years imprisonment to date from 21 August 1999 and to expire on 20 August 2002. (iii) The appellant is to be released at the expiration of one year and eight months from 21 August 1999, upon his entering into a Recognizance in the sum of $500.00 to be of good behaviour for one year and four months. 75 The explanation of the sentence required by s 16F of the Crimes Act is to be provided to the applicant by his Solicitor or Counsel.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.