A A
B DCCC 813/2014 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 813 OF 2014
E E
-----------------------------------
F HKSAR F
v.
G G
PANG WANHONG
-----------------------------------
H H
Before: HH Judge Douglas T.H. Yau
I Date: 8th December 2014 at 10:57 am I
Present: Ms. Rebecca Lee, Counsel on fiat,
J J
for HKSAR
K K
Mr. Gordon Wong, instructed by M/s Yu Hung & Co,
L
assigned by DLA, for the Defendant L
Offences: [1] Assisting the passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized
M M
entrants (協助未獲授權進境者前來香港的旅程)
N [2] Endangering the safety of others at sea (危害他人在海上 N
的安全)
O O
----------------------------
P P
Reasons for Sentence
Q
---------------------------- Q
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Assisting the
R R
passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants, contrary to s.37D(1)(a) of
S the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 and one charge of Endangering the S
safety of others at sea, contrary to s.72 of the Shipping and Port Control
T T
Ordinance, Cap.313.
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 2 -
A A
B B
Facts
C C
D 2. Marine Police spotted on radar a sampan at around 4:50am on D
30th July 2014 near Nan’ao (outside Hong Kong territory) heading towards
E E
Hong Kong. Police officers were alerted and 2 Police vessels were
F dispatched to the scene. F
G G
3. The sampan was sighted by officers on the Police vessels at
H around 5:45am at about 1 nautical mile off the east shore of Wang Chau, H
heading towards Wang Chau slowly.
I I
J 4. The Police vessels signaled for the sampan to stop, but it J
suddenly turned around and accelerated towards the direction of mainland
K K
China. Police vessels gave chase. The defendant was seen at the stern of
L L
the sampan controlling the steering bar. 5 passengers sat in the middle of
M
the sampan. M
N N
5. The sampan was intercepted about 5 minutes later at 2
O nautical miles off the east shore of Wang Chau. Neither the defendant nor O
the 5 passengers were able to produce any identity or travel documents.
P P
Q 6. The defendant was arrested and said under caution that Q
someone paid him to take the 5 passengers to Wang Chau to catch conches.
R R
The 5 passengers were also arrested and said under caution that they came
S from Nan’ao to catch conches. S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 7. The sampan was searched and 2 tanks of petroleum, a B
compass, 13 empty rucksacks, 3 small rucksacks, 3 walkie-talkies, an
C C
anchor with rope attached, some perishable food, cooking oil, a bottle of
D detergent, several pairs of laborer’s gloves and strings were found. D
E E
8. At a subsequent video recorded interview under caution, the
F defendant stated that his boss told him to bring people to Hong Kong to F
catch conches and that he will be paid RMB200 per day for that. The
G G
defendant did not apply for a work visa or travel documents in order to
H come to Hong Kong, nor did the passengers he took. H
I I
9. The defendant further stated that he arrived at a pier in Nan’ao
J at 5am on 30th July 2014 and the sampan was already there with tank filled J
with petroleum. They left Nan’ao and entered Hong Kong territory several
K K
minutes later. The defendant was responsible for navigating the sampan
L L
and was the only person who navigated it on the day of his arrest. The
M
defendant did note that there were no life-jackets on board and the sampan M
did not have navigation lights nor any safety equipment. The defendant did
N N
not hold the requisite licence for navigating the sampan.
O O
10. The defendant and all 5 of the passengers were all refused
P P
permission to land in Hong Kong by the Immigration Department.
Q Q
11. The sampan was inspected by a ship inspector of the Marine
R R
Department and was found that the main hull structure and watertight
S integrity were apparently in normal condition, but there were no fire S
fighting appliances nor lifejackets on board. There were also no navigation
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 4 -
A A
B lights fitted. Although the sampan was seaworthy, it was unsuitable for B
navigation.
C C
D Previous convictions D
E E
12. The defendant is of previously clear record.
F F
Mitigation
G G
H 13. The defendant is 40 years old and a mainland citizen. He is H
married to his 32 year old wife. They have a 3 year old son who live with
I I
his mother in Hunan while the defendant himself lives in Shenzhen. The
J defendant has a clear record both in Hong Kong and mainland China. J
K K
14. The defendant is sole breadwinner of the family, working as a
L L
fisherman earning around RMB4,000 per month. Since the defendant has
M
been taken into custody, his family has been in financial difficulty, M
borrowing money and relying on the charity of other family members and
N N
neighbours.
O O
15. Mr. Wong for the defendant pointed out that the defendant
P P
was not the mastermind of the enterprise. He was asked by his boss or
Q employer to carry those passengers and was just paid a modest sum of Q
money to do the job.
R R
S 16. In relation to charge 2, Mr. Wong told the court that according S
to the witness statement of the Police officers, the sea was calm at the
T T
material time and the weather was not bad. The boat itself was seaworthy,
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 5 -
A A
B just not suitable to be navigated. No one was hurt or drowned in the B
incident. The chase lasted just a few minutes and not over a long distance
C C
when the defendant was intercepted shortly after he began fleeing. The
D manner of the defendant’s steering of the sampan was not furious, there D
was no collision with the Police vessel. The boat was not fit for navigation
E E
because of lack of navigation lights. The safety of the Police officers was
F never in jeopardy. F
G G
17. Mr. Wong relied on the case of HKSAR v Tang ZhuYan,
H CACC 223 of 2010 to suggest the appropriate starting points for the two H
charges.
I I
J 18. There the Court of Appeal adopted starting point of 5 years’ J
imprisonment for charge 1, and a starting point of 12 months’
K K
imprisonment for charge 2.
L L
M
19. Mr. Wong pointed out that the defendant in our case has M
pleaded guilty and shown his remorse at a timely stage, with no time or
N N
resources wasted. Mr. Wong also asked the court to take into account the
O defendant’s family background and show leniency. O
P P
20. In relation to totality, Mr. Wong submitted that both offences
Q arose from the same incident and so at least part of the sentences should Q
run concurrently.
R R
S Sentence S
T T
Charge 1
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 6 -
A A
B B
21. The maximum sentence for a conviction on indictment of a
C C
s.37D(1)(a) assisting passage to Hong Kong offence is that of a fine of
D $5,000,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. D
E E
22. I find the defendant to be the person responsible for the
F navigation of the sampan as well as the person in charge of the sampan at F
the material time.
G G
H 23. I accept HKSAR v Tang ZhuYan as persuasive authority on H
sentencing in our present case, given that there the applicant faced
I I
identical charges with similar facts.
J J
24. I find that, as suggested in paragraph 16 of Tang ZhuYan,
K K
referring to the earlier case of HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin, CACC 357 of 2004,
L L
the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for an offence under
M
s.37D(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, where the accused is the captain or M
the person in charge of the vessel, is 5 years’ imprisonment.
N N
O 25. Although the defendant did turn the sampan around to flee O
when told to stop, the facts state that the defendant just steered the sampan
P P
back towards the mainland China direction without making any dangerous
Q maneuvers and the chase lasted only a few minutes. I find that none of the Q
aggravating features identified by the Court in Wong Chi Kin at paragraph
R R
12(a) to (e)1 are present in our case.
S S
T T
1
Concealed passengers making it hard for them to escape, vessel being unseaworthy, number of
passengers, whether vessel was overloaded and whether passengers are young, old or infirm
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 7 -
A A
B 26. In relation to the defendant’s family situation, I find that the B
fact that as a result of his likely imprisonment his wife and young son will
C C
have to live on the charity of others “not a basis upon which the court can
D reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence of imprisonment”. D
E E
27. In the case of Tang ZhuYan cited by Mr. Wong for the
F defendant at paragraph 14, the Court in turn cited HKSAR v Shum Chung F
Wai [2002] 2 HKLRD 81 where they stated that “family circumstances
G G
should be disregarded, particularly when sentences for serious offences
H are concerned…” H
I I
28. I will therefore adopt a starting point of 5 years’
J imprisonment in relation to charge 1, granting the defendant the full J
one-third discount in recognition of his guilty plea and sentence him to 40
K K
months’ imprisonment.
L L
M
Charge 2 M
N N
29. The maximum sentence for a conviction on indictment of a
O s.72 endangering safety of others offence is that of a fine of $200,000 and O
imprisonment for 4 years.
P P
Q 30. I find that the severity of the sentence should reflect the Q
amount of danger that others had been exposed to because of the state of
R R
the vessel, and not the way that the vessel was being navigated. This is
S apparent from the particulars of the charge as stated on the charge sheet. S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 8 -
A A
B 31. In our present case, the complaints against the vessel are the B
lack of fire-fighting equipment, lack of lifejackets and lack of navigation
C C
lights. The vessel is however found to be seaworthy, just that it would be
D unsuitable for navigation. The seriousness of the offence is at the lower end D
of the scale.
E E
F 32. I will adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, F
discounted to 8 months upon the defendant’s guilty plea.
G G
H Totality H
I I
33. On the application of the principle of totality, I would like to
J refer to the case of HKSAR v Ding QiJing, CACC 75 of 2014 where the J
Court of Appeal referred to their earlier decision in HKSAR v Sze Yu,
K K
CACC 143 of 2003:
L L
M
“31. The judgment of the court in HKSAR v Sze Yu is not an M
authority for the proposition that where a charge of an offence
N N
contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance
O is laid against a defendant, together with a charge of an offence O
contrary to section 37, 38 or 39 of the Ordinance, the court must
P P
order that the sentences of imprisonment imposed be served
Q consecutively. Although in HKSAR v Sze Yu this court approved Q
the judge’s order that those sentences be served consecutively, it is
R R
to be remembered that the facts of the case are an egregious
S example of conduct that endangers the safety of others at sea.” S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 9 -
A A
B 34. In the case of Sze Yu, upon being intercepted by Police vessels, B
the sampan was “steered at high speed in a zigzag course, making sudden
C C
and violent changes in directions. One of the police launches had to
D change course several times to avoid a collision. The chase lasted about 15 D
minutes at which point the sampan’s engine caught fire and the sampan
E E
capsized. The waves at that time were at grade two to three. The 10 people
F on board fell into the sea. No life-saving equipment was seen. Police F
jumped into the sea to rescue the passengers, all of whom had some
G G
injuries and four officers received injuries as well. Some passengers were
H unconscious; three had swallowed sea water and was suffering from H
“respiratory insufficiency”. One passenger had a first degree burn to the
I I
right arm.”
J J
35. In our present case, no such aggravating features are present.
K K
The defendant did turn around and sped away but was intecepted just a few
L L
minutes later. There is no evidence disclosed in the summary of facts that
M
the sampan had been maneuvered in a reckless or dangerours manner M
during the short chase.
N N
O 36. That being the case, and bearing in mind the sentence O
imposed on the applicant in the case of Tang ZhuYan, I order 2 months of
P P
charge 2 to be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 1, the balance
Q to be served concurrently. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 37. The total sentence for the 2 charges after plea is therefore 42 B
months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
(Douglas T.H. Yau)
F
District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
A A
B DCCC 813/2014 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 813 OF 2014
E E
-----------------------------------
F HKSAR F
v.
G G
PANG WANHONG
-----------------------------------
H H
Before: HH Judge Douglas T.H. Yau
I Date: 8th December 2014 at 10:57 am I
Present: Ms. Rebecca Lee, Counsel on fiat,
J J
for HKSAR
K K
Mr. Gordon Wong, instructed by M/s Yu Hung & Co,
L
assigned by DLA, for the Defendant L
Offences: [1] Assisting the passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized
M M
entrants (協助未獲授權進境者前來香港的旅程)
N [2] Endangering the safety of others at sea (危害他人在海上 N
的安全)
O O
----------------------------
P P
Reasons for Sentence
Q
---------------------------- Q
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Assisting the
R R
passage to Hong Kong of unauthorized entrants, contrary to s.37D(1)(a) of
S the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 and one charge of Endangering the S
safety of others at sea, contrary to s.72 of the Shipping and Port Control
T T
Ordinance, Cap.313.
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 2 -
A A
B B
Facts
C C
D 2. Marine Police spotted on radar a sampan at around 4:50am on D
30th July 2014 near Nan’ao (outside Hong Kong territory) heading towards
E E
Hong Kong. Police officers were alerted and 2 Police vessels were
F dispatched to the scene. F
G G
3. The sampan was sighted by officers on the Police vessels at
H around 5:45am at about 1 nautical mile off the east shore of Wang Chau, H
heading towards Wang Chau slowly.
I I
J 4. The Police vessels signaled for the sampan to stop, but it J
suddenly turned around and accelerated towards the direction of mainland
K K
China. Police vessels gave chase. The defendant was seen at the stern of
L L
the sampan controlling the steering bar. 5 passengers sat in the middle of
M
the sampan. M
N N
5. The sampan was intercepted about 5 minutes later at 2
O nautical miles off the east shore of Wang Chau. Neither the defendant nor O
the 5 passengers were able to produce any identity or travel documents.
P P
Q 6. The defendant was arrested and said under caution that Q
someone paid him to take the 5 passengers to Wang Chau to catch conches.
R R
The 5 passengers were also arrested and said under caution that they came
S from Nan’ao to catch conches. S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 7. The sampan was searched and 2 tanks of petroleum, a B
compass, 13 empty rucksacks, 3 small rucksacks, 3 walkie-talkies, an
C C
anchor with rope attached, some perishable food, cooking oil, a bottle of
D detergent, several pairs of laborer’s gloves and strings were found. D
E E
8. At a subsequent video recorded interview under caution, the
F defendant stated that his boss told him to bring people to Hong Kong to F
catch conches and that he will be paid RMB200 per day for that. The
G G
defendant did not apply for a work visa or travel documents in order to
H come to Hong Kong, nor did the passengers he took. H
I I
9. The defendant further stated that he arrived at a pier in Nan’ao
J at 5am on 30th July 2014 and the sampan was already there with tank filled J
with petroleum. They left Nan’ao and entered Hong Kong territory several
K K
minutes later. The defendant was responsible for navigating the sampan
L L
and was the only person who navigated it on the day of his arrest. The
M
defendant did note that there were no life-jackets on board and the sampan M
did not have navigation lights nor any safety equipment. The defendant did
N N
not hold the requisite licence for navigating the sampan.
O O
10. The defendant and all 5 of the passengers were all refused
P P
permission to land in Hong Kong by the Immigration Department.
Q Q
11. The sampan was inspected by a ship inspector of the Marine
R R
Department and was found that the main hull structure and watertight
S integrity were apparently in normal condition, but there were no fire S
fighting appliances nor lifejackets on board. There were also no navigation
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 4 -
A A
B lights fitted. Although the sampan was seaworthy, it was unsuitable for B
navigation.
C C
D Previous convictions D
E E
12. The defendant is of previously clear record.
F F
Mitigation
G G
H 13. The defendant is 40 years old and a mainland citizen. He is H
married to his 32 year old wife. They have a 3 year old son who live with
I I
his mother in Hunan while the defendant himself lives in Shenzhen. The
J defendant has a clear record both in Hong Kong and mainland China. J
K K
14. The defendant is sole breadwinner of the family, working as a
L L
fisherman earning around RMB4,000 per month. Since the defendant has
M
been taken into custody, his family has been in financial difficulty, M
borrowing money and relying on the charity of other family members and
N N
neighbours.
O O
15. Mr. Wong for the defendant pointed out that the defendant
P P
was not the mastermind of the enterprise. He was asked by his boss or
Q employer to carry those passengers and was just paid a modest sum of Q
money to do the job.
R R
S 16. In relation to charge 2, Mr. Wong told the court that according S
to the witness statement of the Police officers, the sea was calm at the
T T
material time and the weather was not bad. The boat itself was seaworthy,
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 5 -
A A
B just not suitable to be navigated. No one was hurt or drowned in the B
incident. The chase lasted just a few minutes and not over a long distance
C C
when the defendant was intercepted shortly after he began fleeing. The
D manner of the defendant’s steering of the sampan was not furious, there D
was no collision with the Police vessel. The boat was not fit for navigation
E E
because of lack of navigation lights. The safety of the Police officers was
F never in jeopardy. F
G G
17. Mr. Wong relied on the case of HKSAR v Tang ZhuYan,
H CACC 223 of 2010 to suggest the appropriate starting points for the two H
charges.
I I
J 18. There the Court of Appeal adopted starting point of 5 years’ J
imprisonment for charge 1, and a starting point of 12 months’
K K
imprisonment for charge 2.
L L
M
19. Mr. Wong pointed out that the defendant in our case has M
pleaded guilty and shown his remorse at a timely stage, with no time or
N N
resources wasted. Mr. Wong also asked the court to take into account the
O defendant’s family background and show leniency. O
P P
20. In relation to totality, Mr. Wong submitted that both offences
Q arose from the same incident and so at least part of the sentences should Q
run concurrently.
R R
S Sentence S
T T
Charge 1
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 6 -
A A
B B
21. The maximum sentence for a conviction on indictment of a
C C
s.37D(1)(a) assisting passage to Hong Kong offence is that of a fine of
D $5,000,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. D
E E
22. I find the defendant to be the person responsible for the
F navigation of the sampan as well as the person in charge of the sampan at F
the material time.
G G
H 23. I accept HKSAR v Tang ZhuYan as persuasive authority on H
sentencing in our present case, given that there the applicant faced
I I
identical charges with similar facts.
J J
24. I find that, as suggested in paragraph 16 of Tang ZhuYan,
K K
referring to the earlier case of HKSAR v Wong Chi Kin, CACC 357 of 2004,
L L
the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for an offence under
M
s.37D(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, where the accused is the captain or M
the person in charge of the vessel, is 5 years’ imprisonment.
N N
O 25. Although the defendant did turn the sampan around to flee O
when told to stop, the facts state that the defendant just steered the sampan
P P
back towards the mainland China direction without making any dangerous
Q maneuvers and the chase lasted only a few minutes. I find that none of the Q
aggravating features identified by the Court in Wong Chi Kin at paragraph
R R
12(a) to (e)1 are present in our case.
S S
T T
1
Concealed passengers making it hard for them to escape, vessel being unseaworthy, number of
passengers, whether vessel was overloaded and whether passengers are young, old or infirm
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 7 -
A A
B 26. In relation to the defendant’s family situation, I find that the B
fact that as a result of his likely imprisonment his wife and young son will
C C
have to live on the charity of others “not a basis upon which the court can
D reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence of imprisonment”. D
E E
27. In the case of Tang ZhuYan cited by Mr. Wong for the
F defendant at paragraph 14, the Court in turn cited HKSAR v Shum Chung F
Wai [2002] 2 HKLRD 81 where they stated that “family circumstances
G G
should be disregarded, particularly when sentences for serious offences
H are concerned…” H
I I
28. I will therefore adopt a starting point of 5 years’
J imprisonment in relation to charge 1, granting the defendant the full J
one-third discount in recognition of his guilty plea and sentence him to 40
K K
months’ imprisonment.
L L
M
Charge 2 M
N N
29. The maximum sentence for a conviction on indictment of a
O s.72 endangering safety of others offence is that of a fine of $200,000 and O
imprisonment for 4 years.
P P
Q 30. I find that the severity of the sentence should reflect the Q
amount of danger that others had been exposed to because of the state of
R R
the vessel, and not the way that the vessel was being navigated. This is
S apparent from the particulars of the charge as stated on the charge sheet. S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 8 -
A A
B 31. In our present case, the complaints against the vessel are the B
lack of fire-fighting equipment, lack of lifejackets and lack of navigation
C C
lights. The vessel is however found to be seaworthy, just that it would be
D unsuitable for navigation. The seriousness of the offence is at the lower end D
of the scale.
E E
F 32. I will adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, F
discounted to 8 months upon the defendant’s guilty plea.
G G
H Totality H
I I
33. On the application of the principle of totality, I would like to
J refer to the case of HKSAR v Ding QiJing, CACC 75 of 2014 where the J
Court of Appeal referred to their earlier decision in HKSAR v Sze Yu,
K K
CACC 143 of 2003:
L L
M
“31. The judgment of the court in HKSAR v Sze Yu is not an M
authority for the proposition that where a charge of an offence
N N
contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance
O is laid against a defendant, together with a charge of an offence O
contrary to section 37, 38 or 39 of the Ordinance, the court must
P P
order that the sentences of imprisonment imposed be served
Q consecutively. Although in HKSAR v Sze Yu this court approved Q
the judge’s order that those sentences be served consecutively, it is
R R
to be remembered that the facts of the case are an egregious
S example of conduct that endangers the safety of others at sea.” S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 9 -
A A
B 34. In the case of Sze Yu, upon being intercepted by Police vessels, B
the sampan was “steered at high speed in a zigzag course, making sudden
C C
and violent changes in directions. One of the police launches had to
D change course several times to avoid a collision. The chase lasted about 15 D
minutes at which point the sampan’s engine caught fire and the sampan
E E
capsized. The waves at that time were at grade two to three. The 10 people
F on board fell into the sea. No life-saving equipment was seen. Police F
jumped into the sea to rescue the passengers, all of whom had some
G G
injuries and four officers received injuries as well. Some passengers were
H unconscious; three had swallowed sea water and was suffering from H
“respiratory insufficiency”. One passenger had a first degree burn to the
I I
right arm.”
J J
35. In our present case, no such aggravating features are present.
K K
The defendant did turn around and sped away but was intecepted just a few
L L
minutes later. There is no evidence disclosed in the summary of facts that
M
the sampan had been maneuvered in a reckless or dangerours manner M
during the short chase.
N N
O 36. That being the case, and bearing in mind the sentence O
imposed on the applicant in the case of Tang ZhuYan, I order 2 months of
P P
charge 2 to be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 1, the balance
Q to be served concurrently. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V
- 10 -
A A
B 37. The total sentence for the 2 charges after plea is therefore 42 B
months’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
(Douglas T.H. Yau)
F
District Judge F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT21/8.12.2014 DCCC813/2014/Reasons for Sentence
V V