The District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region noted as follows:

• The defendant’s participation in the conspiracy to facilitate the smuggling of migrants amounted to willfully turning a blind eye - in his capacity as a ground service agent - to the fact that certain passengers (at least two) were not the same persons as those identified in the respective boarding passes. He thus deliberately refrained from performing his duty.
• A ground service agent is assigned to checking the travel document and boarding pass of passengers lining up for boarding so as to assess whether further action is needed before allowing the boarding. The main duty of the staff is to prevent unauthorised passengers from boarding. By falling to act according to his duties, the defendant facilitating the smuggling of migrants.
• Even though there was no clear evidence on the positive steps, if any, taken by the defendant pursuant to the illegal agreement in the two incidents that led to the boarding of unauthorized passengers and in which the defendant was present, by failing to perform his duties, the defendant played an instrumental role in the successful implementation of the conspiracy.
• Airlines have been trying, as far as practicable, to prevent migrant smuggling. Measures are put in place and staff are engaged to prevent such activities not only to protect the commercial interests and the reputation of airlines, but also to ensure migration control, in which airlines nowadays often have a role to play. The illegal operation the defendant agreed to undermines the effectiveness of borders control. This is essential to Hong Kong. Yet, as an international city, Hong Kong further owes a duty in this aspect to all countries in the world. In this sense, see HKSAR v He Wenyou, CACC235/2008.
• There are furthermore important security concerns. In present times, most countries are trying their best to combat and prevent terrorism. Permitting a person with false identity to board may increase the security risk to the flight and the destination country of the unauthorised passenger.
• Whilst there is no direct evidence about the scale of the smuggling scheme, common sense dictates it must have involved much planning and organization. This is all more so the case in view of the defendant’s declaration referring to the involvement of ‘staff from the airlines and government departments’.
• There was no evidence that the defendant had received any reward or compensation for his involvement in the migrant smuggling venture.
• The defendant was not a mastermind of the smuggling scheme nor was he at the core of it. He might have just succumbed to the circumstances rather than taking an initiative to join. However, for such an illegal scheme to succeed, it needs people like the defendant. Deterrence is hence necessary also in respect of less active individuals as the defendant. Persons with the duty bestowed upon the defendant are the last barrier - or at least, possibly the last barrier - to the successful boarding of irregular migrants.
• A sentencing starting point of three years’ imprisonment is appropriate and sufficient to reflect the nature of the offence and the degree of culpability. No discount was due because the defendant played an essential role to the success of the offence and the fact that its involvement was not a ‘one-time’ event. His participation lasted for over six months. His conduct further amounted to a significant breach of trust. For these reasons, no mitigation is triggered by the fact that the defendant was not the mastermind, planner or organizer of the smuggling scheme.

Against this background, the District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sentenced the defendant to three years’ imprisonment.

This case illustrate how passive behaviours by ‘persons on duty’ may be equally critical for the success of migrant smuggling enterprises, thus triggering pressing deterrent responses from authorities, which are reflected in severe sentences.