A HCCC341/2010 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 341 OF 2010
C C
-----------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
Law Chun-man (A1) (羅掁文)
F Man Tung-shun (A2) (萬通順) F
-----------------
G Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Beeson G
Date: 8 August 2011 at 9.42 am
Present: Mr Derek Lai, SPP of the Department of Justice,
H H
for HKSAR
Mr Roderick Wu Kam-fun, instructed by C O Yu
I & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, I
for the 1st Accused
Mr Wong Po-wing, instructed by Messrs CMK
J Lawyers, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, J
for the 2nd Accused
K Offence: (1) Conspiracy to commit arson (A1 and A2) (串謀縱火) K
(2) Arson (A1) (縱火)
(3) Placing an article with intent of inducing another
L to believe that it is likely to explode (A1) L
(放置物品而意圖誘使他人相信該物品相當可能會爆炸)
M (4) Arson being reckless as to whether life would be M
endangered (A1) (縱火而罔顧生命是否會受到危害)
N --------------------------------- N
Transcript of the Audio Recording
O
of the Sentence in the above Case O
---------------------------------
P COURT: After a 12-day trial before a jury, the 1st and 2nd P
defendants, who were charged jointly on Charge 1, were found
guilty of that charge of conspiracy to commit arson,
Q contrary to section 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Q
Cap 200, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance,
R Cap 200. R
The verdict for the 1st defendant was unanimous, and that
S for the 2nd defendant was six to one. S
The 1st defendant was also found guilty by unanimous verdict
T of Charge 2, which was arson, contrary to section 60(1) and T
(3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. Charge 3 was placing
U an article with intent of inducing another to believe that U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 1 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A it is likely to explode, contrary to section 28(1)(a) and A
(4) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245. This charge was
against the 1st defendant only, and the unanimous jury
B verdict was one of guilty. B
The original Charge 4 was arson being reckless as to whether
C C
life would be endangered, contrary to section 60(2) and (3)
of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. However, the jury found
D the 1st defendant not guilty of that offence, but guilty, by D
unanimous verdict, of the alternative offence of arson,
contrary to section 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap 200. E
The offences were directed apparently at a Mr Chun Chi-wai,
F F
who, through his company structure, owned a scrap yard which
was the locus for Charges 1, 2 and 4, and his registered
G office was the locus for the delivery of the hoax bomb in G
Charge 3.
H No clear evidence of a background dispute or of the precise H
motive was led at trial, but it was clear that the offences
I
were directed, organised and financed by one or more persons I
over an extended period.
J The features on each charge were similar. In Charge 1, a J
conspiracy charge involving an agreement to commit arson
between the 1st and 2nd defendants and persons unknown, both
K accused were to participate in the offence, the K
1st defendant as a driver and lookout and the 2nd defendant
L as a lookout. In addition, four mainlanders were employed L
to set fire to the target, which was a barge at the scrap
yard, and an abortive attack was made. The attack took
M place in the early morning hours when two security guards M
were on the barge. One guard was tied up and his mobile
phone was stolen. The other guard raised the alarm, and the
N would-be attackers fled, leaving behind a significant N
quantity of petrol and some cotton waste.
O O
Three of the four mainlanders were driven by the
1st defendant to the cross-border coach station immediately
P after the failed attack. P
In overall charge was Liu King-fung, who was known as
Q Q
“Nam Chai”, who appeared to act as the co-ordinator in all
of these incidents.
R R
Charge 2, an arson charge, arose from a petrol bomb attack
on two excavators which were being operated at the scrap
S yard. The 1st defendant was the driver, and acted on the S
instructions of “Nam Chai”. He conveyed three mainlanders
to the scrap yard, knowing that they had petrol bombs with
T T
them. At the scrap yard, the men threw the petrol bombs
directly at the operators’ cabs. The flames caused fire
U damage to the excavators which cost $17,000 to repair. One U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 2 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A of the operators suffered burns, but also sustained damage A
to his back when he jumped from the cab to escape the
flames, and this precluded him from working from 18 January
B 2009 to June 2011, approximately. B
Events and personnel were orchestrated by “Nam Chai”, and
C C
the 1st defendant was paid $20,000 for his work.
D Charge 3 involved the delivery of a simulated bomb to the D
registered office of Mr Chun Chi-wai. The 1st defendant was
responsible for all the driving, for collection of
E personnel, delivery of the parcel and the return journeys. E
“Nam Chai” was the organiser and also accompanied the
delivery boy and the parcel. The 1st defendant knew what
F F
the parcel contained. When a report was made to the police
by staff who were fearful of the contents, the office was
G evacuated for some time, and the police bomb disposal expert G
was obliged to attend to deal with the parcel.
H For this work, the 1st defendant was paid $3,000. H
I
Charge 4 was another petrol bomb attack on the scrap yard. I
Three men from the mainland, the 1st defendant and
“Nam Chai” all took part. The 1st defendant acted as
J transporter of participants and material. He waited to act J
as the getaway driver after the attack.
K The three men threw at least six petrol bombs. A seventh K
petrol bomb was found unexploded. The attackers also
L brought with them coconut-head fireworks. Two unexploded L
fireworks were found.
M The attack was quick, unannounced, and directed M
indiscriminately at people and property in the yard. A van
and an excavator sustained fire damage, but by great good
N fortune, none of the three men on the vehicle, nor the N
excavator operator, nor any of the many people in the scrap
O yard were injured. The attack was on a Friday; about 11 am, O
when one would expect business to be brisk. PW1 had given
evidence that the yard was busy all the time.
P P
The 1st defendant was to have been paid $20,000 for his part
in this attack, but he did not receive any money as he was
Q Q
arrested later on the same day.
R By the time of his arrest, the Honda Accord registered in R
his name which had been used in all four incidents had
disappeared, although whether that was D1’s doing or
S something organised by “Nam Chai” is not entirely clear. S
The car had not been recovered by the time of the trial, and
“Nam Chai” was believed to have left Hong Kong.
T T
The 1st defendant is aged 35 and is married, with one child
U aged 3 years. He claimed to work as a self-employed U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 3 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A decoration worker earning $8,000 approximately a month. His A
wife is a civil servant earning $18,000 a month. He has a
clear record except for one offence of driving whilst
B disqualified and an associated offence of driving without B
third party insurance. He was sentenced to 1 month’s
imprisonment for those offences.
C C
His counsel asked the court to note that this was not a
D revenge attack. That the four offences were spread over one D
year and were of a similar nature, and on that basis,
counsel asked the court to consider concurrent sentences and
E to consider totality. Counsel submitted that the E
1st defendant was unlikely to offend in a similar fashion
again.
F F
There was no evidence showing that these attacks were not
G revenge attacks. Indeed, the written abuse and threats that G
were obvious from Charge 3 indicates that they were.
H I accept, however, that if they were revenge attacks, that H
the 1st defendant was not pursuing revenge on his own
I
behalf, although in some ways it is worse to seek revenge in I
cold blood on behalf of another person than it is to seek it
on the spur of the moment for oneself.
J J
At the time of the offences the 2nd defendant was aged only
17. He lived with his parents and younger brother and had
K only one previous conviction for common assault, for which K
he had been placed on probation.
L L
He completed Form 3 schooling, but left school after a few
months in Form 4. He had taken casual work after that time.
M I sought a background report before sentencing in view of M
the defendant’s age. That report is not a pretty one. It
shows that although he has a supportive family, that he was
N a law unto himself effectively from the time he left school. N
He had poor motivation to work and would work for a short
O period and then stop working. When he was placed on O
probation for common assault, he did not respond well to the
probation order that was made against him. He was
P eventually discharged from the boys’ home where he had been P
required to live because of his unsatisfactory behaviour.
When he returned home, he failed to comply with curfew
Q Q
requirements, and eventually he was dealt with for breach of
probation.
R R
After discharge from the rehabilitation centre in mid-2008,
the accused had worked as a delivery worker in Sheung Shui,
S again intermittently. His parents had noted that he was S
lacking attention in job seeking. He worked on and off as a
casual restaurant and food delivery worker, earning $20 a
T T
day, and then would spend his time unemployed. He had been
remanded for the current offence from December of 2010 to
U March of 2011, and during that period he had worked as a U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 4 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A food delivery worker, again intermittently, and had taken a A
casual job as a cyber café assistant.
B He maintained to the probation officer that he had not been B
involved in this offence, so it is difficult to see that he
showed any particular remorse for this offence. Certainly
C C
there was nothing in the report that indicates to me
anything other than that a sentence of imprisonment is
D required in the case of the 2nd defendant. D
These are extremely serious offences. There were designated
E targets, or a target, if one considers the scrap yard alone. E
The offences were carefully thought out and organised. It
appears that the actual attackers, or some of them, were
F F
brought in from the mainland for the task of throwing the
bombs, and they left the Territory immediately after their
G work was completed. This presumably was to ensure that G
there was no trail for the police to follow.
H The actual attacks were launched suddenly and without H
warning. The attackers did not shy away from directing the
I
petrol bombs at property or persons, and were clearly I
oblivious to any physical harm or damage they might inflict.
J Substantial sums were offered as payment to those who took J
part in the venture. This was in recognition of the
physical danger involved, as well as recognising the risk
K that the participants ran of serious charges following their K
possible arrest. There were multiple attacks on the same
L scrap yard. L
The 1st defendant had known “Nam Chai” for some years, and
M in 2009 he made himself available as a driver when called on M
by “Nam Chai”. The car appears to have been purchased with
funds provided in part by “Nam Chai”, and the 1st defendant
N also had a mobile telephone dedicated to calls to and from N
“Nam Chai”, a telephone “Nam Chai” had told him to keep for
O his exclusive use and which was used on occasion by O
“Nam Chai” himself.
P The same “Nam Chai” was a neighbour of the 2nd defendant, P
and, as the 2nd defendant said, had known him almost from
the time he was born. He was recruited as a lookout by
Q Q
“Nam Chai” and was told to call “Nam Chai’s” mobile phone if
he saw any police officers on the night of the attack in
R January 2009. R
The 2nd defendant was in the car with the 1st defendant,
S “Nam Chai”, and the former 3rd defendant when the police S
stopped the car at a roadblock. At that time, the
2nd defendant was in breach of his supervision order. He
T T
said that he was to be paid $10,000 for acting as a lookout,
but because the attack was not a success, he did not receive
U any payment. U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 5 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
I have considered the various cases referred to me and
considered generally the range of sentence that should be
B imposed, given that arson is such a serious offence that it B
merits a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. “Arson,
because of the inherent danger of any uncontrolled fire, is
C C
always regarded as an offence of particular gravity, and the
arsonists exhibit reckless disregard for life and property.”
D The Queen v Li Mnn tong 1994 No 309. The case in which those D
words were quoted involved a revenge attack in the dead of
night in a highly-populated area.
E E
These offences before me were a concerted effort to scare or
intimidate or exact revenge for some business dispute, and
F F
given the organisation and the extreme method chosen, which
was petrol bombing, I consider that high sentences are
G called for, in particular to deter others from adopting such G
methods as common business practice.
H In respect of the 1st defendant, on Charge 1 I sentence him H
to 8 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 2, I sentence him to
I
12 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 3, I sentence him to I
3 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 4, I sentence him to
12 years’ imprisonment, and I order that 2 years of the
J sentence on Charge 4 run consecutively to that on Charge 2. J
It is a total of 14 years’ imprisonment.
K K
In respect of the 2nd defendant, who faces only the
L 1st charge of conspiracy, I take into account his age at the L
time of the offences, and consider that I should give a
different sentence to that for D1. However, this was a
M serious offence, and it is quite obvious that at the time, M
the defendant knew what he was doing.
N I sentence him to 6 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1. N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 6 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A HCCC341/2010 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 341 OF 2010
C C
-----------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
Law Chun-man (A1) (羅掁文)
F Man Tung-shun (A2) (萬通順) F
-----------------
G Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Beeson G
Date: 8 August 2011 at 9.42 am
Present: Mr Derek Lai, SPP of the Department of Justice,
H H
for HKSAR
Mr Roderick Wu Kam-fun, instructed by C O Yu
I & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, I
for the 1st Accused
Mr Wong Po-wing, instructed by Messrs CMK
J Lawyers, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, J
for the 2nd Accused
K Offence: (1) Conspiracy to commit arson (A1 and A2) (串謀縱火) K
(2) Arson (A1) (縱火)
(3) Placing an article with intent of inducing another
L to believe that it is likely to explode (A1) L
(放置物品而意圖誘使他人相信該物品相當可能會爆炸)
M (4) Arson being reckless as to whether life would be M
endangered (A1) (縱火而罔顧生命是否會受到危害)
N --------------------------------- N
Transcript of the Audio Recording
O
of the Sentence in the above Case O
---------------------------------
P COURT: After a 12-day trial before a jury, the 1st and 2nd P
defendants, who were charged jointly on Charge 1, were found
guilty of that charge of conspiracy to commit arson,
Q contrary to section 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Q
Cap 200, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance,
R Cap 200. R
The verdict for the 1st defendant was unanimous, and that
S for the 2nd defendant was six to one. S
The 1st defendant was also found guilty by unanimous verdict
T of Charge 2, which was arson, contrary to section 60(1) and T
(3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. Charge 3 was placing
U an article with intent of inducing another to believe that U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 1 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A it is likely to explode, contrary to section 28(1)(a) and A
(4) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245. This charge was
against the 1st defendant only, and the unanimous jury
B verdict was one of guilty. B
The original Charge 4 was arson being reckless as to whether
C C
life would be endangered, contrary to section 60(2) and (3)
of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. However, the jury found
D the 1st defendant not guilty of that offence, but guilty, by D
unanimous verdict, of the alternative offence of arson,
contrary to section 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap 200. E
The offences were directed apparently at a Mr Chun Chi-wai,
F F
who, through his company structure, owned a scrap yard which
was the locus for Charges 1, 2 and 4, and his registered
G office was the locus for the delivery of the hoax bomb in G
Charge 3.
H No clear evidence of a background dispute or of the precise H
motive was led at trial, but it was clear that the offences
I
were directed, organised and financed by one or more persons I
over an extended period.
J The features on each charge were similar. In Charge 1, a J
conspiracy charge involving an agreement to commit arson
between the 1st and 2nd defendants and persons unknown, both
K accused were to participate in the offence, the K
1st defendant as a driver and lookout and the 2nd defendant
L as a lookout. In addition, four mainlanders were employed L
to set fire to the target, which was a barge at the scrap
yard, and an abortive attack was made. The attack took
M place in the early morning hours when two security guards M
were on the barge. One guard was tied up and his mobile
phone was stolen. The other guard raised the alarm, and the
N would-be attackers fled, leaving behind a significant N
quantity of petrol and some cotton waste.
O O
Three of the four mainlanders were driven by the
1st defendant to the cross-border coach station immediately
P after the failed attack. P
In overall charge was Liu King-fung, who was known as
Q Q
“Nam Chai”, who appeared to act as the co-ordinator in all
of these incidents.
R R
Charge 2, an arson charge, arose from a petrol bomb attack
on two excavators which were being operated at the scrap
S yard. The 1st defendant was the driver, and acted on the S
instructions of “Nam Chai”. He conveyed three mainlanders
to the scrap yard, knowing that they had petrol bombs with
T T
them. At the scrap yard, the men threw the petrol bombs
directly at the operators’ cabs. The flames caused fire
U damage to the excavators which cost $17,000 to repair. One U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 2 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A of the operators suffered burns, but also sustained damage A
to his back when he jumped from the cab to escape the
flames, and this precluded him from working from 18 January
B 2009 to June 2011, approximately. B
Events and personnel were orchestrated by “Nam Chai”, and
C C
the 1st defendant was paid $20,000 for his work.
D Charge 3 involved the delivery of a simulated bomb to the D
registered office of Mr Chun Chi-wai. The 1st defendant was
responsible for all the driving, for collection of
E personnel, delivery of the parcel and the return journeys. E
“Nam Chai” was the organiser and also accompanied the
delivery boy and the parcel. The 1st defendant knew what
F F
the parcel contained. When a report was made to the police
by staff who were fearful of the contents, the office was
G evacuated for some time, and the police bomb disposal expert G
was obliged to attend to deal with the parcel.
H For this work, the 1st defendant was paid $3,000. H
I
Charge 4 was another petrol bomb attack on the scrap yard. I
Three men from the mainland, the 1st defendant and
“Nam Chai” all took part. The 1st defendant acted as
J transporter of participants and material. He waited to act J
as the getaway driver after the attack.
K The three men threw at least six petrol bombs. A seventh K
petrol bomb was found unexploded. The attackers also
L brought with them coconut-head fireworks. Two unexploded L
fireworks were found.
M The attack was quick, unannounced, and directed M
indiscriminately at people and property in the yard. A van
and an excavator sustained fire damage, but by great good
N fortune, none of the three men on the vehicle, nor the N
excavator operator, nor any of the many people in the scrap
O yard were injured. The attack was on a Friday; about 11 am, O
when one would expect business to be brisk. PW1 had given
evidence that the yard was busy all the time.
P P
The 1st defendant was to have been paid $20,000 for his part
in this attack, but he did not receive any money as he was
Q Q
arrested later on the same day.
R By the time of his arrest, the Honda Accord registered in R
his name which had been used in all four incidents had
disappeared, although whether that was D1’s doing or
S something organised by “Nam Chai” is not entirely clear. S
The car had not been recovered by the time of the trial, and
“Nam Chai” was believed to have left Hong Kong.
T T
The 1st defendant is aged 35 and is married, with one child
U aged 3 years. He claimed to work as a self-employed U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 3 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A decoration worker earning $8,000 approximately a month. His A
wife is a civil servant earning $18,000 a month. He has a
clear record except for one offence of driving whilst
B disqualified and an associated offence of driving without B
third party insurance. He was sentenced to 1 month’s
imprisonment for those offences.
C C
His counsel asked the court to note that this was not a
D revenge attack. That the four offences were spread over one D
year and were of a similar nature, and on that basis,
counsel asked the court to consider concurrent sentences and
E to consider totality. Counsel submitted that the E
1st defendant was unlikely to offend in a similar fashion
again.
F F
There was no evidence showing that these attacks were not
G revenge attacks. Indeed, the written abuse and threats that G
were obvious from Charge 3 indicates that they were.
H I accept, however, that if they were revenge attacks, that H
the 1st defendant was not pursuing revenge on his own
I
behalf, although in some ways it is worse to seek revenge in I
cold blood on behalf of another person than it is to seek it
on the spur of the moment for oneself.
J J
At the time of the offences the 2nd defendant was aged only
17. He lived with his parents and younger brother and had
K only one previous conviction for common assault, for which K
he had been placed on probation.
L L
He completed Form 3 schooling, but left school after a few
months in Form 4. He had taken casual work after that time.
M I sought a background report before sentencing in view of M
the defendant’s age. That report is not a pretty one. It
shows that although he has a supportive family, that he was
N a law unto himself effectively from the time he left school. N
He had poor motivation to work and would work for a short
O period and then stop working. When he was placed on O
probation for common assault, he did not respond well to the
probation order that was made against him. He was
P eventually discharged from the boys’ home where he had been P
required to live because of his unsatisfactory behaviour.
When he returned home, he failed to comply with curfew
Q Q
requirements, and eventually he was dealt with for breach of
probation.
R R
After discharge from the rehabilitation centre in mid-2008,
the accused had worked as a delivery worker in Sheung Shui,
S again intermittently. His parents had noted that he was S
lacking attention in job seeking. He worked on and off as a
casual restaurant and food delivery worker, earning $20 a
T T
day, and then would spend his time unemployed. He had been
remanded for the current offence from December of 2010 to
U March of 2011, and during that period he had worked as a U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 4 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A food delivery worker, again intermittently, and had taken a A
casual job as a cyber café assistant.
B He maintained to the probation officer that he had not been B
involved in this offence, so it is difficult to see that he
showed any particular remorse for this offence. Certainly
C C
there was nothing in the report that indicates to me
anything other than that a sentence of imprisonment is
D required in the case of the 2nd defendant. D
These are extremely serious offences. There were designated
E targets, or a target, if one considers the scrap yard alone. E
The offences were carefully thought out and organised. It
appears that the actual attackers, or some of them, were
F F
brought in from the mainland for the task of throwing the
bombs, and they left the Territory immediately after their
G work was completed. This presumably was to ensure that G
there was no trail for the police to follow.
H The actual attacks were launched suddenly and without H
warning. The attackers did not shy away from directing the
I
petrol bombs at property or persons, and were clearly I
oblivious to any physical harm or damage they might inflict.
J Substantial sums were offered as payment to those who took J
part in the venture. This was in recognition of the
physical danger involved, as well as recognising the risk
K that the participants ran of serious charges following their K
possible arrest. There were multiple attacks on the same
L scrap yard. L
The 1st defendant had known “Nam Chai” for some years, and
M in 2009 he made himself available as a driver when called on M
by “Nam Chai”. The car appears to have been purchased with
funds provided in part by “Nam Chai”, and the 1st defendant
N also had a mobile telephone dedicated to calls to and from N
“Nam Chai”, a telephone “Nam Chai” had told him to keep for
O his exclusive use and which was used on occasion by O
“Nam Chai” himself.
P The same “Nam Chai” was a neighbour of the 2nd defendant, P
and, as the 2nd defendant said, had known him almost from
the time he was born. He was recruited as a lookout by
Q Q
“Nam Chai” and was told to call “Nam Chai’s” mobile phone if
he saw any police officers on the night of the attack in
R January 2009. R
The 2nd defendant was in the car with the 1st defendant,
S “Nam Chai”, and the former 3rd defendant when the police S
stopped the car at a roadblock. At that time, the
2nd defendant was in breach of his supervision order. He
T T
said that he was to be paid $10,000 for acting as a lookout,
but because the attack was not a success, he did not receive
U any payment. U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 5 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
I have considered the various cases referred to me and
considered generally the range of sentence that should be
B imposed, given that arson is such a serious offence that it B
merits a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. “Arson,
because of the inherent danger of any uncontrolled fire, is
C C
always regarded as an offence of particular gravity, and the
arsonists exhibit reckless disregard for life and property.”
D The Queen v Li Mnn tong 1994 No 309. The case in which those D
words were quoted involved a revenge attack in the dead of
night in a highly-populated area.
E E
These offences before me were a concerted effort to scare or
intimidate or exact revenge for some business dispute, and
F F
given the organisation and the extreme method chosen, which
was petrol bombing, I consider that high sentences are
G called for, in particular to deter others from adopting such G
methods as common business practice.
H In respect of the 1st defendant, on Charge 1 I sentence him H
to 8 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 2, I sentence him to
I
12 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 3, I sentence him to I
3 years’ imprisonment. On Charge 4, I sentence him to
12 years’ imprisonment, and I order that 2 years of the
J sentence on Charge 4 run consecutively to that on Charge 2. J
It is a total of 14 years’ imprisonment.
K K
In respect of the 2nd defendant, who faces only the
L 1st charge of conspiracy, I take into account his age at the L
time of the offences, and consider that I should give a
different sentence to that for D1. However, this was a
M serious offence, and it is quite obvious that at the time, M
the defendant knew what he was doing.
N I sentence him to 6 years’ imprisonment on Charge 1. N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/8.8.2011/KS 6 HCCC341/2010/Sentence
V V