A A
B B
DCCC 1127/2013
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1127 OF 2013 E
F F
--------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
HE YOUQUAN
I -------------------------- I
J J
Before: HH Judge A Kwok
K Date: 24 January 2014 at 11.12 am K
Present: Ms Chan Sze-yan, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, for
L L
HKSAR
M Mr James W L Li, of James W L Li & Co, assigned by the M
Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: (1) Being the captain of a ship with persons on board seeking
O to land unlawfully in Hong Kong (船隻上載有尋求在香 O
P
港非法入境的人時身為船長) P
(2) Attempting to land in Hong Kong without permission (未
Q Q
經准許而企圖在香港入境) (Alternative to Charge 1)
R R
(3) Endangering the safety of others at sea (危害他人在海上
S 的安全) S
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B B
------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The defendant (male) (aged 55 years), appeared before me E
this morning and pleaded guilty to one charge of “Being the captain of a
F F
ship with persons on board seeking to land unlawfully in Hong Kong”,
G contrary to section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (Charge 1) G
and also another charge of “Endangering the safety of others at sea”,
H H
contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance, Cap
I 313. I
J J
2. The particulars of Charge 1 allege that on 13 October 2013 the
K defendant, being the captain of a motorised sampan, had on board the said K
sampan nine persons seeking to land from the said sampan in
L L
contravention of section 38(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.
M The nine persons as named in the first charge were all from Pakistan, India M
and Somalia respectively. All of them had no valid travel documents and
N N
they had not obtained permission to enter Hong Kong.
O O
3. The particulars of offence of Charge 3 aver that, as the
P P
coxswain of the motorised sampan, the defendant had navigated the
Q sampan from the Mainland, from Dongguan, into Tai O, Hong Kong, when Q
(a) the sampan was not suitable for navigation, namely, with no
R R
fire-fighting appliance and navigation light on board, and (b) made sudden
S and dangerous manoeuvres of the sampan to evade interception by the S
Police Launch 33 and thereby endangering not only the nine persons on
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B B
board of his own motorised sampan but also the police officers on board
C Police Launch 33. C
D D
The facts
E E
4. The amended summary of facts, which were accepted by the
F F
defendant, stated that being the coxswain of the motorised sampan, he
G sought to escape when approached by a marine police vessel PV33 at about G
11 pm on 13 October 2013 at the waters of Hong Kong.
H H
I 5. At that time, the police had switched on the spotlight and the I
blue flashlight, indicating the sampan to stop. The police had also shouted
J J
and the sampan and requested it to stop. However, the sampan ignored all
K the warnings. Instead, it accelerated and made sharp turns so that PV33 K
had to decelerate to avoid a collision. The ensuing chase lasted until 11.25
L L
pm, when the police managed to intercept the sampan.
M M
6. At that point, the police found that the defendant was the
N N
captain of the sampan, whereas there were nine other males on board of the
O sampan. All of them were wet and amongst them only the defendant and O
the two other males wore a life jacket.
P P
Q 7. The defendant was arrested and cautioned, under which he Q
said that a “bald head” gave him HK$3,000 for him to convey the nine
R R
males to a ship in Tai O.
S S
8. In a subsequent video recorded interview, he repeated what he
T T
said under caution at the scene and he further added that the “bald head”
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B B
had brought the black-skinned males to the sampan and asked him to
C convey them from Dongguan in the Mainland to Tai O. Furthermore, there C
were no compass and navigation lights on the sampan and only a few life
D D
jackets were available. He had navigated for three hours before he was
E finally intercepted by the police within Hong Kong waters. E
F F
9. The sampan in question was later examined by the Marine
G Department and was found to be seaworthy, but not suitable for navigation G
because there are no fire-fighting appliances and no navigation light.
H H
I The criminal record and the background of the defendant I
J J
10. The defendant is a Mainlander and is a fisherman by
K occupation. He is 55 years old and he had no criminal record, both in Hong K
Kong and in the Mainland. He is married but had separated with his wife.
L L
They have two children, a son and a daughter. The children are married
M and were living apart. M
N N
Mitigation
O O
11. Mr James Li, the solicitor representing the defendant, had
P P
asked the court to pass a lenient sentence in light of the facts and
Q circumstances of the case. He stressed the fact that the defendant has no Q
criminal record, both in Hong Kong and in China and also he had pleaded
R R
guilty at the very first opportunity and made full and frank confessions to
S the police. S
T T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
B B
12. In particular, Mr Li properly pointed out that there were no
C women pregnant or otherwise small children on board of the sampan and C
there was no evidence that the nine persons on board were unable to swim.
D D
The nine persons were also not hidden in any concealed compartments
E which may compromise escape in the event of an accident. E
F F
13. Mr Li urged the court to consider passing a concurrent
G sentence of both charges, as he submitted that the two charges were arising G
out of the same event or, alternatively, taking into account the totality
H H
principle, to at least consider passing a partially consecutive sentence in
I respect of both charges. I
J J
14. In the course of his mitigation, he had helpfully referred the
K court to two case authorities. K
L L
15. The first one is HKSAR v Li Chih Hui ( 黎志輝 ), CACC
M 189/2008. The defendant was the coxswain of a boat with three M
unauthorised Vietnamese entrants. The boat was not equipped for sea
N N
navigation and the Court of Appeal that the starting point for sentence was
O O
5 years.
P P
16. The second case he had referred to is HKSAR v Tse Chi Hei
Q Q
(謝自喜), CACC 393/2009. There, the defendant was also the coxswain of
R a fishing boat with 12 unauthorised persons. The boat was in a poor R
condition, without lifesaving equipment and apparatus. The Court of
S S
Appeal held that 6 years is the proper starting point for sentencing.
T T
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
B B
Sentencing considerations
C C
17. In sentencing, I took into account the nature of the offence, the
D D
circumstances of the events, the defendant’s personal background, his
E clear criminal record, his plea of guilty and also the authorities that were in E
relation to the charges.
F F
G 18. I note that in relation to Charge 1, this is the first time the G
prosecution had seen fit to charge a captain of a motorised sampan under
H H
section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance, the reason being that as the
I persons on board of the sampan this time were people from South Asia and I
from Africa, they are therefore not caught within the definition of “illegal
J J
entrants” under section 37 of the same ordinance.
K K
19. Under section 37C or D of the Immigration Ordinance, the
L L
prescribed maximum imprisonment is one of 14 years. However, under
M section 39 of the same ordinance, the maximum sentence and the M
prescribed imprisonment is one of 7 years.
N N
O 20. Previously, in relation to persons on board a motorised O
vehicle, when they were not “illegal entrants”, the prosecution had charged
P P
the person in charge of the vessel under section 38 of the Immigration
Q Ordinance for “Attempting to land in Hong Kong without permission”, Q
whereas in that particular section, the maximum sentence is only one of 3
R R
years.
S S
21. In the past, the court had on numerous occasions expressed
T T
concern over the fact that defendants, when carrying different categories of
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
B B
people, were treated differently, albeit that their criminality is generally the
C same. C
D D
22. The discrepancy of the treatment and, as a result, the
E sentences in relation to the defendants in these two categories are, to a E
large extent, now remedied by the prosecution’s decision to choose instead
F F
to charge the present defendant under section 39 of the same ordinance.
G G
23. This is because, in the past, the Court of Appeal had numerous
H H
authorities to say that an appropriate starting point for an accused who was
I in charge of a vessel carrying “unlawful entrants” is 5 years under 37C or I
37D of the Immigration Ordinance.
J J
K 24. Although, as I have observed, under section 37 and under K
section 39, there is still a difference between the prescribed maximum
L L
imprisonment term, one of 14 and one of 7 years, I judge that the
M criminality involved in these two sections, being emphasised on the role of M
the defendant as the person in charge of the vessel, are in fact exactly the
N N
same.
O O
25. I therefore come to the conclusion that I see there is no logic
P P
or reason why I shall not follow the Court of Appeal’s usual sentencing
Q guideline or practice insofar as section 37 is concerned when I come to deal Q
with a similar section 39 offence.
R R
S 26. I have also considered another case which is of value and it is S
HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [2011] 1 HKLRD 447 where the Court of Appeal
T T
said:-
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
B B
“16. As this court noted in HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin, the
C appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for an C
offence under section 37D(1) of the Immigration
Ordinance, where the accused is the captain or the
D person in charge of the vessel, is 5 years’ imprisonment. D
The court went on give a non-definitive list of
E aggravating factors relevant to sentence. Those factors E
included the fact that, ‘the vessel concerned was
unseaworthy by reason of poor maintenance or age, with
F the risk of endangering passengers’. F
G
17. In R v Lo Shui Lun, CACC 109/1995, in a judgment G
delivered by Bokhary JA, this court said that regard was
to be had in sentencing to the aggravating factor of
H ‘unseaworthiness’ where the vessel was to be described H
as a ‘floating coffin’ or a ‘leaky tub’. Further, danger to
human life was inherent in the smuggling of human
I I
cargo. The court went on to say that the absence of
fire-fighting equipment and navigation lights was, ‘of
J relatively little significance’. Although the absence of J
lifesaving equipment was said to ‘stand differently’,
nevertheless it was described as bringing only, ‘some
K slight increase in the hazard over and above the sort K
inherent to this kind of activity’.
L L
18. In HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing, CACC 180/2010, a
differently constituted division of this court, noting that
M public expectations of safety at sea had moved on, M
expressed disagreement with those observations in
respect of fire-fighting and lifesaving equipment and
N N
said that henceforth those were matters that should be
regarded as factors of aggravation.”
O O
27. In relation to the “Endangering the safety at sea” charge, the
P P
Court of Appeal had said in paragraph 22 of the judgment that:-
Q Q
“22. It is to be noted that many of the judgments of this court,
R in which the issue of the appropriate sentence for the R
subject “offence” “of Charge 2 is raised, involve
S
aggravating factors in the commission of the offence S
absent in the current case. Often, in the attempts to
escape the respective defendants deliberately steer their
T sampans dangerously, significantly increasing the risks T
to the occupants of both the sampans and the pursuing
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
B police vessels. Sometimes, there were collisions B
between the vessels.”
C C
28. The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the facts of that
D D
particular case, came to the conclusion that, given that there is absence of
E “aggravating features of danger” because there was no collision, the E
District Judge’s decision to use 18 months’ imprisonment as a starting
F F
point is “manifestly excessive”. The Court of Appeal considered that the
G appropriate starting point for sentence would, therefore, be 12 months’ G
imprisonment.
H H
I 29. Coming back to this case, in Charge 1, I accept that the usual I
starting point in this case should be one of 5 years, but because of the Court
J J
of Appeal’s decision in Zhong Ming Jing (supra), as there was no
K fire-fighting and lifesaving equipment on board of the vessel in the present K
case, those are factors of aggravation and, because of that, I will add
L L
another 3 months to the 5 years’ starting point.
M M
30. For Charge 1, therefore, the appropriate starting point is 63
N N
months.
O O
P
31. In relation to Charge 3, although there was no evidence of a P
collision in this case, but there are some additional factors which are
Q Q
present which are aggravating factors in that when the police vessel
R approached the sampan, the sampan suddenly turned the direction, it R
accelerated and made sharp turns so that the police vessel had to decelerate
S S
to avoid a collision.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
32. Thus, unlike the decision in Tang Zhuyan (supra), I judge that
C there are some aggravating features in this case and, for these reasons, the C
appropriate starting point should be one of 15 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 33. Affording the defendant the discount of one-third from the E
starting point, the appropriate sentences are:-
F F
(1) for Charge 1, 42 months’ imprisonment; and
G G
H
(2) for Charge 3, 10 months’ imprisonment. H
I I
34. I order that 2 months of the sentence of Charge 3 to serve
J consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1, making the total sentences of J
the two charges 3 years and 8 months.
K K
L L
M M
N ( A Kwok ) N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1127/2013
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1127 OF 2013 E
F F
--------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
HE YOUQUAN
I -------------------------- I
J J
Before: HH Judge A Kwok
K Date: 24 January 2014 at 11.12 am K
Present: Ms Chan Sze-yan, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, for
L L
HKSAR
M Mr James W L Li, of James W L Li & Co, assigned by the M
Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: (1) Being the captain of a ship with persons on board seeking
O to land unlawfully in Hong Kong (船隻上載有尋求在香 O
P
港非法入境的人時身為船長) P
(2) Attempting to land in Hong Kong without permission (未
Q Q
經准許而企圖在香港入境) (Alternative to Charge 1)
R R
(3) Endangering the safety of others at sea (危害他人在海上
S 的安全) S
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B B
------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The defendant (male) (aged 55 years), appeared before me E
this morning and pleaded guilty to one charge of “Being the captain of a
F F
ship with persons on board seeking to land unlawfully in Hong Kong”,
G contrary to section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (Charge 1) G
and also another charge of “Endangering the safety of others at sea”,
H H
contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance, Cap
I 313. I
J J
2. The particulars of Charge 1 allege that on 13 October 2013 the
K defendant, being the captain of a motorised sampan, had on board the said K
sampan nine persons seeking to land from the said sampan in
L L
contravention of section 38(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.
M The nine persons as named in the first charge were all from Pakistan, India M
and Somalia respectively. All of them had no valid travel documents and
N N
they had not obtained permission to enter Hong Kong.
O O
3. The particulars of offence of Charge 3 aver that, as the
P P
coxswain of the motorised sampan, the defendant had navigated the
Q sampan from the Mainland, from Dongguan, into Tai O, Hong Kong, when Q
(a) the sampan was not suitable for navigation, namely, with no
R R
fire-fighting appliance and navigation light on board, and (b) made sudden
S and dangerous manoeuvres of the sampan to evade interception by the S
Police Launch 33 and thereby endangering not only the nine persons on
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B B
board of his own motorised sampan but also the police officers on board
C Police Launch 33. C
D D
The facts
E E
4. The amended summary of facts, which were accepted by the
F F
defendant, stated that being the coxswain of the motorised sampan, he
G sought to escape when approached by a marine police vessel PV33 at about G
11 pm on 13 October 2013 at the waters of Hong Kong.
H H
I 5. At that time, the police had switched on the spotlight and the I
blue flashlight, indicating the sampan to stop. The police had also shouted
J J
and the sampan and requested it to stop. However, the sampan ignored all
K the warnings. Instead, it accelerated and made sharp turns so that PV33 K
had to decelerate to avoid a collision. The ensuing chase lasted until 11.25
L L
pm, when the police managed to intercept the sampan.
M M
6. At that point, the police found that the defendant was the
N N
captain of the sampan, whereas there were nine other males on board of the
O sampan. All of them were wet and amongst them only the defendant and O
the two other males wore a life jacket.
P P
Q 7. The defendant was arrested and cautioned, under which he Q
said that a “bald head” gave him HK$3,000 for him to convey the nine
R R
males to a ship in Tai O.
S S
8. In a subsequent video recorded interview, he repeated what he
T T
said under caution at the scene and he further added that the “bald head”
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B B
had brought the black-skinned males to the sampan and asked him to
C convey them from Dongguan in the Mainland to Tai O. Furthermore, there C
were no compass and navigation lights on the sampan and only a few life
D D
jackets were available. He had navigated for three hours before he was
E finally intercepted by the police within Hong Kong waters. E
F F
9. The sampan in question was later examined by the Marine
G Department and was found to be seaworthy, but not suitable for navigation G
because there are no fire-fighting appliances and no navigation light.
H H
I The criminal record and the background of the defendant I
J J
10. The defendant is a Mainlander and is a fisherman by
K occupation. He is 55 years old and he had no criminal record, both in Hong K
Kong and in the Mainland. He is married but had separated with his wife.
L L
They have two children, a son and a daughter. The children are married
M and were living apart. M
N N
Mitigation
O O
11. Mr James Li, the solicitor representing the defendant, had
P P
asked the court to pass a lenient sentence in light of the facts and
Q circumstances of the case. He stressed the fact that the defendant has no Q
criminal record, both in Hong Kong and in China and also he had pleaded
R R
guilty at the very first opportunity and made full and frank confessions to
S the police. S
T T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
B B
12. In particular, Mr Li properly pointed out that there were no
C women pregnant or otherwise small children on board of the sampan and C
there was no evidence that the nine persons on board were unable to swim.
D D
The nine persons were also not hidden in any concealed compartments
E which may compromise escape in the event of an accident. E
F F
13. Mr Li urged the court to consider passing a concurrent
G sentence of both charges, as he submitted that the two charges were arising G
out of the same event or, alternatively, taking into account the totality
H H
principle, to at least consider passing a partially consecutive sentence in
I respect of both charges. I
J J
14. In the course of his mitigation, he had helpfully referred the
K court to two case authorities. K
L L
15. The first one is HKSAR v Li Chih Hui ( 黎志輝 ), CACC
M 189/2008. The defendant was the coxswain of a boat with three M
unauthorised Vietnamese entrants. The boat was not equipped for sea
N N
navigation and the Court of Appeal that the starting point for sentence was
O O
5 years.
P P
16. The second case he had referred to is HKSAR v Tse Chi Hei
Q Q
(謝自喜), CACC 393/2009. There, the defendant was also the coxswain of
R a fishing boat with 12 unauthorised persons. The boat was in a poor R
condition, without lifesaving equipment and apparatus. The Court of
S S
Appeal held that 6 years is the proper starting point for sentencing.
T T
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
B B
Sentencing considerations
C C
17. In sentencing, I took into account the nature of the offence, the
D D
circumstances of the events, the defendant’s personal background, his
E clear criminal record, his plea of guilty and also the authorities that were in E
relation to the charges.
F F
G 18. I note that in relation to Charge 1, this is the first time the G
prosecution had seen fit to charge a captain of a motorised sampan under
H H
section 39 of the Immigration Ordinance, the reason being that as the
I persons on board of the sampan this time were people from South Asia and I
from Africa, they are therefore not caught within the definition of “illegal
J J
entrants” under section 37 of the same ordinance.
K K
19. Under section 37C or D of the Immigration Ordinance, the
L L
prescribed maximum imprisonment is one of 14 years. However, under
M section 39 of the same ordinance, the maximum sentence and the M
prescribed imprisonment is one of 7 years.
N N
O 20. Previously, in relation to persons on board a motorised O
vehicle, when they were not “illegal entrants”, the prosecution had charged
P P
the person in charge of the vessel under section 38 of the Immigration
Q Ordinance for “Attempting to land in Hong Kong without permission”, Q
whereas in that particular section, the maximum sentence is only one of 3
R R
years.
S S
21. In the past, the court had on numerous occasions expressed
T T
concern over the fact that defendants, when carrying different categories of
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
B B
people, were treated differently, albeit that their criminality is generally the
C same. C
D D
22. The discrepancy of the treatment and, as a result, the
E sentences in relation to the defendants in these two categories are, to a E
large extent, now remedied by the prosecution’s decision to choose instead
F F
to charge the present defendant under section 39 of the same ordinance.
G G
23. This is because, in the past, the Court of Appeal had numerous
H H
authorities to say that an appropriate starting point for an accused who was
I in charge of a vessel carrying “unlawful entrants” is 5 years under 37C or I
37D of the Immigration Ordinance.
J J
K 24. Although, as I have observed, under section 37 and under K
section 39, there is still a difference between the prescribed maximum
L L
imprisonment term, one of 14 and one of 7 years, I judge that the
M criminality involved in these two sections, being emphasised on the role of M
the defendant as the person in charge of the vessel, are in fact exactly the
N N
same.
O O
25. I therefore come to the conclusion that I see there is no logic
P P
or reason why I shall not follow the Court of Appeal’s usual sentencing
Q guideline or practice insofar as section 37 is concerned when I come to deal Q
with a similar section 39 offence.
R R
S 26. I have also considered another case which is of value and it is S
HKSAR v Tang Zhuyan [2011] 1 HKLRD 447 where the Court of Appeal
T T
said:-
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
B B
“16. As this court noted in HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin, the
C appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for an C
offence under section 37D(1) of the Immigration
Ordinance, where the accused is the captain or the
D person in charge of the vessel, is 5 years’ imprisonment. D
The court went on give a non-definitive list of
E aggravating factors relevant to sentence. Those factors E
included the fact that, ‘the vessel concerned was
unseaworthy by reason of poor maintenance or age, with
F the risk of endangering passengers’. F
G
17. In R v Lo Shui Lun, CACC 109/1995, in a judgment G
delivered by Bokhary JA, this court said that regard was
to be had in sentencing to the aggravating factor of
H ‘unseaworthiness’ where the vessel was to be described H
as a ‘floating coffin’ or a ‘leaky tub’. Further, danger to
human life was inherent in the smuggling of human
I I
cargo. The court went on to say that the absence of
fire-fighting equipment and navigation lights was, ‘of
J relatively little significance’. Although the absence of J
lifesaving equipment was said to ‘stand differently’,
nevertheless it was described as bringing only, ‘some
K slight increase in the hazard over and above the sort K
inherent to this kind of activity’.
L L
18. In HKSAR v Zhong Ming Jing, CACC 180/2010, a
differently constituted division of this court, noting that
M public expectations of safety at sea had moved on, M
expressed disagreement with those observations in
respect of fire-fighting and lifesaving equipment and
N N
said that henceforth those were matters that should be
regarded as factors of aggravation.”
O O
27. In relation to the “Endangering the safety at sea” charge, the
P P
Court of Appeal had said in paragraph 22 of the judgment that:-
Q Q
“22. It is to be noted that many of the judgments of this court,
R in which the issue of the appropriate sentence for the R
subject “offence” “of Charge 2 is raised, involve
S
aggravating factors in the commission of the offence S
absent in the current case. Often, in the attempts to
escape the respective defendants deliberately steer their
T sampans dangerously, significantly increasing the risks T
to the occupants of both the sampans and the pursuing
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
B police vessels. Sometimes, there were collisions B
between the vessels.”
C C
28. The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the facts of that
D D
particular case, came to the conclusion that, given that there is absence of
E “aggravating features of danger” because there was no collision, the E
District Judge’s decision to use 18 months’ imprisonment as a starting
F F
point is “manifestly excessive”. The Court of Appeal considered that the
G appropriate starting point for sentence would, therefore, be 12 months’ G
imprisonment.
H H
I 29. Coming back to this case, in Charge 1, I accept that the usual I
starting point in this case should be one of 5 years, but because of the Court
J J
of Appeal’s decision in Zhong Ming Jing (supra), as there was no
K fire-fighting and lifesaving equipment on board of the vessel in the present K
case, those are factors of aggravation and, because of that, I will add
L L
another 3 months to the 5 years’ starting point.
M M
30. For Charge 1, therefore, the appropriate starting point is 63
N N
months.
O O
P
31. In relation to Charge 3, although there was no evidence of a P
collision in this case, but there are some additional factors which are
Q Q
present which are aggravating factors in that when the police vessel
R approached the sampan, the sampan suddenly turned the direction, it R
accelerated and made sharp turns so that the police vessel had to decelerate
S S
to avoid a collision.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
32. Thus, unlike the decision in Tang Zhuyan (supra), I judge that
C there are some aggravating features in this case and, for these reasons, the C
appropriate starting point should be one of 15 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E 33. Affording the defendant the discount of one-third from the E
starting point, the appropriate sentences are:-
F F
(1) for Charge 1, 42 months’ imprisonment; and
G G
H
(2) for Charge 3, 10 months’ imprisonment. H
I I
34. I order that 2 months of the sentence of Charge 3 to serve
J consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1, making the total sentences of J
the two charges 3 years and 8 months.
K K
L L
M M
N ( A Kwok ) N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V