DCCC329/2023

DCCC329/2023

A A B B DCCC 329/2023 C [2024] HKDC 890 C D D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E CRIMINAL CASE NO 329 OF 2023 F F G -------------------------------------- G HKSAR H H v I LAU TIN YAU (D1) I KONG SIU YEUNG (D2) J J CHEUNG HO MING (D3) K --------------------------------------- K L L Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung M Date: 3 June 2024 M Present: Mr Cheng Shu Fan, Brian, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR N N Mr Chan Ging Man, Robert, instructed by Messrs Ng & Co, O assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1 O Mr Kwong Cho Yan, Simon, instructed by Messrs Raymond P P Chan Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2 Q Mr Manuel Chong, instructed by Messrs Lee & Chow, Q assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D3 R R Offence: [1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs（販運危險藥物） S S [2] Driving without a valid driving licence（駕駛時無有效駕 T 駛執照） T U U V V  -2- A A B B [3] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance（沒有 C 第三者保險而使用汽車） C D D ---------------------------------------- E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E ---------------------------------------- F F G 1. D1-D3 pleaded guilty to a joint charge of trafficking in G dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs H H Ordinance, Cap 134 (Charge 1). I I J 2. D1 also pleaded guilty to one charge of driving without a valid J driving licence contrary to section 42(1) and (4) of the Road Traffic K K Ordinance, Cap 374 (Charge 2) and one charge of using a motor vehicle L without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the L Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272 (Charge M M 3). N N SUMMARY OF FACTS O O P 3. At about 3:47 am on 11 July 2022, WPC 25220 (“PW1”) and P police officers were on vehicle patrol in the Yuen Long area when PW1 Q Q spotted a private vehicle bearing registration number “XZ6194” (“the R Vehicle”) parked outside Marbella Gardens, No 25 Sha Tseng Road, Yuen R Long, New Territories. At the material time, D1, who was aged 17 at the S S time, was fixing the offside front tyre of the Vehicle while D2 and D3 were T standing behind D1. At the same time, D1, D2 and D3 were all looking T around furtively. U U V V  -3- A A B B C 4. PW1 and police officers therefore intercepted D1, D2 and D3. C Upon initial enquiry, D1 stated that the tyre was broken and he helped D D replace it. D1 further stated that there were dangerous drugs in the Vehicle E and he only drove it to repay a debt owed to D2. E F F 5. Upon body search on D2, 2 mobile phones and a car key of the G Vehicle were found on D2. Upon enquiry, D2 stated that D1 drove the G Vehicle for distribution of dangerous drugs while D3 collected payment. H H I 6. Upon body search, cash of HK$12,348 was found in a I shoulder bag carried by D3. Upon enquiry, D3 stated that D2 asked him to J J collect payment. K K 7. Police therefore conducted a search on the Vehicle, the L L following items were found inside a storage compartment at the central M armrest of the Vehicle:- M N N (a) One plastic bag containing 40 plastic bags containing a O total of 13.66 grammes of a solid containing 10.73 O grammes of ketamine (“E1”); P P Q (b) One plastic bag containing 10 plastic bags containing a Q total of 1.52 grammes of a solid containing 1.37 R R grammes of cocaine (“E2”); and S S T T U U V V  -4- A A B B (c) One plastic bag containing 10 plastic bags containing a C total of 1.46 grammes of a solid containing 1.36 C grammes of cocaine (“E3”). D D E Arrest and cautioned statements E F F 8. D1 was arrested at the scene for “Trafficking in dangerous G drugs”. Under verbal caution, D1 stated that D2 asked him to drive the G Vehicle for distribution of dangerous drugs. D1 was further cautioned for H H “Driving without a valid driving licence” and “Using a vehicle without third I party risk insurance”. He admitted that he drove without a licence and that I he did not purchase any third party risk insurance. J J K 9. D2 and D3 were also arrested at the scene for “Trafficking in K dangerous drugs”. Under verbal caution:- L L M (a) D2 stated that the dangerous drugs belonged to him and M that he had asked D1 and D3 to drive the Vehicle and N N collect payment; and O O (b) D3 stated that he was only responsible for collecting P P payment while D1 and D2 were responsible for driving Q the Vehicle and distributing the dangerous drugs. Q R R Further search on the Vehicle S S 10. A further search with the assistance of the Police Dog Unit was T T conducted in respect of the Vehicle at the car park of Yuen Long Police U U V V  -5- A A B B Station, where the Vehicle was towed to. In the presence of D1, D2 and C D3, one plastic bag containing 0.33 grammes of a solid containing 0.27 C grammes of ketamine (“E4”) was found under the gearshift of the Vehicle. D D E 11. When verbally cautioned for E4, D2 stated that E4 belonged E to him. F F G Cautioned statements under VRI G H H 12. D1 was subsequently interviewed under VRI. Under reminded I caution, D1 made, inter alia, the following statements:- I J J (a) He owed D2 some HK$20,000 from gambling. D2 K asked him to repay the debt by driving a vehicle. K HK$2,000 would be deducted for each day of driving; L L M (b) D2 told him to drive the Vehicle for the purposes of M distribution of dangerous drugs; N N O (c) He got on the Vehicle at about 10:00 pm on 10 July O 2022 in Tuen Mun. He then went to Yuen Long and Tin P P Shui Wai with D2 and D3, who distributed dangerous Q drugs there; Q R R (d) This was his first time driving for D2. D2 had asked S him to do it for 15 days from 8:00 pm to 5:00 the next S day; T T U U V V  -6- A A B B (e) D2 drove the Vehicle initially and asked him to drive it C about 2 hours later. He then started to drive from Tin C Shui Wai; and D D (f) He did not have any driving licence and had not E purchased any third party risk insurance. E F F 13. D3 was subsequently interviewed under VRI. Under reminded G caution, D3 made, inter alia, the following statements:- G H H (a) He was a personal trainer earning around HK$15,000 to I HK$20,000 per month; and I J J (b) He was not a drug user. K K Police investigation L L M 14. At all material times, according to the records of the Transport M Department, D1 had not held any driving licence. N N O 15. At all material times, D1 was not covered by any valid third O party risk insurance. P P Q The offences Q R R 16. At all material times:- S S (a) D1, D2 and D3, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous T T drugs, namely, E1 to E4 (Charge 1); U U V V  -7- A A B B C (b) D1 drove the Vehicle on a road when he was not the C holder of a valid driving license in respect of a vehicle D D of the class of vehicle which he was driving (Charge 2); E E (c) D1 used the Vehicle on a road when there was not in F F force in relation to the use of the Vehicle by him such a G policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third G party risks as complied with the requirements of the H H Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) I Ordinance, Cap 272 (Charge 3). I J J Section 56A enhancement K K 17. An enhancement was sought under section 56A of the L L Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134 by the prosecution against D2 and M D3, as the commission of the offence involved a minor, D1. The M prosecution submitted that D2 and D3 intentionally or unintentionally N N employing, hiring, using, persuading, enticing, or coercing a minor, ie D1, O in the commission of charge 1. O P P CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF D1 Q Q 18. D1 has one criminal conviction record of taking conveyance R R 1 without authority and was sentenced to rehabilitation centre, a detention S order which he is currently serving. S T T 1 On 27 April 2023. U U V V  -8- A A B B 19. D1 does not have a valid driving licence. He has no traffic C conviction record. C D D 20. The defendant is now aged 19 and was 17 at the time of the E offences. He is single. He lived with his mother (aged 37) and step-father E (aged 40) in public housing. He has no siblings. He is educated to F F secondary 4 level in Hong Kong. After leaving school, he was unable to G secure any stable job. He had been a garage worker for a week. G H H MITIGATION OF D1 I I 21. In respect of charge 1, it was submitted by Mr Chan that there J J were no exceptional circumstances in this case, pre-sentence reports for D1 K are not necessary (HKSAR v Chan Lok Him DCCC 125/2019, HKSAR v Luo K Xuejian DCCC 131/2022 HKSAR v Wong Tsz Kin and another DCCC L L 302/2023). M M 22. It was submitted by Mr Chan that the “combined approach” to N N sentencing for trafficking a cocktail of dangerous drugs ought to be applied O (HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 at [46]), as opposed to O the “individual approach” which would result in an excessive overall P P sentence ie 81 months’ imprisonment in this case (HKSAR v Islam SM 2 Q Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146). Regarding the 3 tests: Q R R 3 (a) The absurdity test : assuming the total quantity of drugs S seized contained only ketamine (ie 13.73 g), it would, when S T T 2 33+ 48 = 81 months’ imprisonment. 3 HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817. U U V V  -9- A A B B applying the guideline for ketamine, attract a starting point C of 49.9 months’ imprisonment. If, on the other hand, the C total quantity of drugs seized contained only cocaine (13.73 D D g), it would, when applying the guideline for cocaine, E attract a starting point of around 63 months’ imprisonment. E F F (b) The conversion test: the quantity of 2.73 g of cocaine would G attract a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment G applying the guideline for cocaine, and the same starting H H point according to the guideline for ketamine (the base I drug) would correspond to 4.5 g of ketamine; so by adding I the converted quantity of 4.5 g of ketamine to the 11 g of J J ketamine seized, the total quantity would be 15.5 g, for K which, according to the guideline for ketamine, would K attract a starting point of 51.3 months’ imprisonment. On L L the other hand, if one were to convert the 11 g of ketamine M to cocaine (= 6.8 g of cocaine), the total quantity would be M 9.53 g of cocaine, for which, according to the guideline for N N cocaine, would attract a starting point of around 58 months’ O imprisonment. O P P (c) The ratio test: the ratio of ketamine is around 0.80 Q (11g/13.73 g) and ratio of cocaine is around 0.20 (2.73 Q g/13.73 g); and so on the total quantity of 13.73 g, the R R starting point according to the guideline for ketamine is S 49.9 months’ imprisonment, which when multiplied by the S ratio 0.80 is 39.92 months’ imprisonment, and the starting T T point for 13.73g according to the guideline for cocaine is U U V V  - 10 - A A B B 63.4 months’ imprisonment, which when multiplied by the C ratio of 0.20 is 12.68 months’ imprisonment, resulting in a C total starting point of 52.6 months’ imprisonment (ie 39.92 D D months + 12.68 months). E E 23. The calculations of the above were agreed by the prosecution, F F D2 and D3. G G 24. In the present case, the quantity of ketamine is substantially H H higher, representing about 80% of the drugs seized (11/13.73), it was I submitted that ketamine should be the base drug in the present case. This I is agreed by the Prosecution (HKSAR v Chan Lok Him). If this is the case, J J the court should then increase the sentence to take into account the other K drug, cocaine. It was suggested that 3 months at most may appropriately K be added on. L L M 25. The court was invited to not make any enhancement though 2 M kinds of drugs are involved in the present case. It was submitted that the N N quantity of cocaine only accounted for about 20% of the drugs seized, with O the principal drug being ketamine (HKSAR v Chan Lok Him). O P P 26. The court is also invited not to make any enhancement for D1 Q jointly committed the offence with D2 and D3 given the D1 was a minor Q (aged 17) at the time of the offence and the role of D1 was only a R R driver/courier (HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290). In S addition, D2 admitted that under caution all the drugs belonged to him. D1 S committed the trafficking offence because by driving, he would be able to T T repay a substantial debt of HK$20,000 he owed to D2 U U V V  - 11 - A A B B C 27. In respect of charge 2, it was submitted that D1 only drove C from about 0000 hours on 11 July 2022 from Tin Shu Wai, where D2 and D D D3 distributed drugs. The vehicle was found parked in Tuen Mun at about E 0347 hours on 11 July 2022. There is no evidence of the route D1 drove or E the actual length of time that he drove. Nor is there any evidence of D1’s F F manner of driving, and it is not clear that D1 would have continued to drive G after being arrested. By referring to HKSAR v Tse Chi Hong [2019] HKDC G 284, Mr Chan invited the court to impose a short custodial sentence. H H I 28. In respect of charge 3, there were no personal injury or I property damage caused by D1’s driving. The court is asked to impose a J J short custodial sentence and a minimum period of 12 months for the K disqualification. K L L 29. Finally, Mr Chan asked the sentence for all the charges to run M concurrently (HKSAR v Tse Chi Hong DCCC 527/2018). M N N CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF D2 O O 30. D2 has a clear record. P P Q 31. D2 is now 24 years of age and was 22 at the time of offence. Q D2 was educated up to Form 3. His father is 48 years old and his mother is R R 39. D2 also has 2 sisters who are 14 and 8. D2 previously worked as a S vehicle repairman at a salary of HK$15,000 per month but has been S unemployed since July 2021. T T U U V V  - 12 - A A B B MITIGATION OF D2 C C 32. It was submitted by Mr Kwong that six-step approach to D D sentencing for offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs should be E considered (HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290). E F F 33. As multiple drugs were trafficked in this case, the appropriate G sentence was to be determined after cross-checking the sentencing outcome G of the 3 tests. After cross-checking, the arithmetic starting point should be H H around 4 years and 3 months to 4 years and 5 months. I I 34. Regarding the enhancement under section 56A, Cap 134, it is J J not disputed that the enhancement applies to D2. D1 was marginally below K the age of an adult and there is no evidence that D2 had knowledge of D1’s K age. It was submitted that the involvement of a minor was unintentional, L L the appropriate enhancement should be between 6-15% in the present case M and the enhancement should be done before the reduction for guilty plea, M which is accepted by the Prosecution (HKSAR v Ng Hon Keung [2012] 1 N N HKLRD 1017, HKSAR v Chan Ka Shing [2012] 2 HKLRD 220, HKSAR v O O Wong Chun Hin [2019] 1 HKLRD 433, 香港特別行政區 訴 何耀滔 P DCCC1061/2022 [2023] HKDC 1167, HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] 1 P HKLRD 1186). Q Q R 35. This is a case of joint enterprise. It is submitted by Mr Kwong R that it is an aggravating factor. S S T 36. Mitigation letters of D2 and D2’s grandmother were submitted T and a lenient sentence was asked for. U U V V  - 13 - A A B B C CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF D3 C D D 37. D3 has a clear record. E E 38. D3 is now 26 years of age and was 24 at the time of offence. F F He is single. D3 was educated up to Form 6 and lived with his parents. His G father (aged 55) is a barber. His mother (aged 55) worked in a school tuck G shop, but she just quit her job since she has suffered cancer. After H H graduation, D3 worked as a freelance personal trainer, earning about I $15,000 – $20,000 a month. D3 was an athlete of Hong Kong. At the time I of the offence, he was unemployed owing to COVID-19 pandemic. J J K 39. It was submitted that D3 knew D2 when they were at school. K Upon D2’s request, D3 agreed to assist D2 to commit the offence. D3 did L L not know D1; he only met D1 for the first time on the date of offence. M M MITIGATION OF D3 N N O 40. It was submitted by Mr Chong that a combined approach was O to be considered in this case. P P Q 41. Regarding the enhancement under section 56A, Cap 134, it is Q not disputed that the enhancement applies to D3. It was submitted that the R R enhancement must be proportionate to the sentence for the basic offence S and must be reasonable (HKSAR v Chan Ka Shing [2012] 2 HKLRD 220, S T HKSAR v Ng Hon Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 1017 and HKSAR v Har Tsz Yui T [2020] 1 HKLRD 307) U U V V  - 14 - A A B B C SENTENCE C D D Charge 1 – Trafficking in dangerous drugs (D1-D3) E E 42. The dangerous drugs involved in this case were 2.73 grammes F F of cocaine and 11 grammes of ketamine. G G 43. The tariff guideline for trafficking in cocaine is set out in AG H H v Pedro Nel Rojas [1994] 2 HKCLR 69 and R v Lau Tak Ming & Others I [1990] 2 HKLR 370. As for ketamine, the guidelines is laid down in SJ v I Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1. J J K 44. In determining the overall starting point, I have reminded K myself of the sentencing principles in HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong CACC L L 318/2013 where cocktail drugs are involved. In the present case, if the M individual approach is adopted, I find that the starting point would be 79 M months’ imprisonment4, which is too excessive. I agreed that a “combined N N approach” is to be preferred. The court has to apply three tests to cross O checking so as to ensure the overall sentence to be within range. I adopted O the calculation made by D1 of the respective three tests and it was agreed P P by D2-D3 and the prosecution. Q Q 45. In terms of potency, in HKSAR v Ko Ka Hing [2009] 4 R R HKLRD 856: S S T T 4 (30 (cocaine) + 49(ketamine) = 79) U U V V  - 15 - A A B “(3) Where the “combined approach” is taken, the court will B rely on common sense in determining which type of the C dangerous drugs is to be regarded as the more serious, hence C forming the basis of the starting point. For example, a certain type of drug, although less potent, may be present in much larger D quantity than another, in which case its quantity will form the D basis for the starting point. On the other hand, if the two types E of drugs are present in similar quantities, the quantity of the drug E of greater potency will provide the basis for the starting point.” F F 46. Although cocaine is more potent than ketamine, the ketamine G found in this case is in a significantly larger quantity. I found that ketamine G should form the basis of the starting point. H H I 47. Under the absurdity test, the starting point would be 50 I months’ imprisonment. J J K 48. Under the conversion test, the starting point would be 51 K months’ imprisonment. L L M 49. Under the ratio test, the starting point would be 52.6 months’ M imprisonment. N N O O 50. I have also considered the methodology under the combined P approach as laid out in HKSAR v Islam S M Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD P 146 and Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290. Q Q R 51. For charge 1, I adopt a notional starting point of 51 months’ R imprisonment. S S T 52. D1, D2 and D3 were acting in joint enterprise and they should T bear the same responsibility. It is an aggravating factor. I enhance the U U V V  - 16 - A A B B sentence by 2 months. I have also considered the aggravating factor that C the trafficking involved more than one dangerous drug (HKSAR v Chan Yuk C Leong (陳旭亮) CACC 318/2013 para 23). I further enhance the sentence D D by 2 months. As such, the starting point would be 55 months’ E imprisonment. E F F D1 G G 53. D1 is now aged 19 years old. He was 17 at the time of the H H offences. I have borne in mind the legal principles in sentencing young I offenders under the age of 21. I am aware that the restriction on I imprisonment of young persons under section 109A of the Criminal J J Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. Regards must be given in the consideration K of rehabilitation and reformation of the young offender. Seriousness of the K offences must also be given sufficient consideration. In the present case, L L the offence of charge 1 which D1 pleaded guilty to, is an excepted offence. M As such, pursuant to section 109A (1A), section 109A(1) does not apply. M N N 54. I find that an immediate custodial sentence is the appropriate O O sentence for D1 for charge 1. (Secretary for Justice v Chau Tsz Tim (周梓 P 添) [2015] 1 HKLRD 853 and HKSAR v Wong Ka Chun (王家駿) [2016] P 4 HKC 424) Q Q R 55. For charge 1, the starting point for D1 is 55 months’ R imprisonment, after one third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 36 S S months’ imprisonment. T T U U V V  - 17 - A A B B D2 and D3 C C 56. It was not disputed that the enhancement under section 56A D D applies to D2 and D3. Section 56A provides: E E “(1) Subject to subsection (5), where a person (other than a F minor) has been convicted of a specified offence and— F (a) a court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to G any information furnished under subsection (2); G or H H (b) any such information is agreed by the person, I then the court— I (i) shall have regard to such information when it J J passes a sentence on the person for the offence; and K K (ii) may, if it thinks fit, pass a sentence on the person for that offence that is more severe than the L sentence it would, in the absence of such L information, have passed. M M (2) Information which may be furnished to a court under this subsection is any information which proves that the N commission of the relevant specified offence involved a N minor and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the information may relate to any of the O O following— P … P (d) a person intentionally or unintentionally Q employing, hiring, using, persuading, enticing, or Q coercing a minor in the commission of a specified R offence or the avoidance of detection or R apprehension of such an offence; S (3) Only information that would be admissible in evidence S in criminal proceedings (including proceedings in T respect of sentencing) may be furnished to the court T under subsection (2). U U V V  - 18 - A A B (4) Where the prosecution seeks to furnish information to a B court under subsection (2), the court shall allow the C person convicted of the relevant specified offence an C opportunity to— D (a) object to the reception of the information; and D E (b) where such information is received by the court, E furnish other information regarding that first- mentioned information. F F (5) A sentence passed pursuant to subsection (1) shall not exceed the maximum penalty permitted by law for the G G relevant specified offence. H … H specified offence (指明罪行) means any offence under section I I 4, 4A, 5, 6, 8, 9, 35, 36 or 37.” J J 57. The minor involved is D1, aged 17 at the time of the offence. K “Minor” is not defined in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Under the K Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, Cap 1, infant and minor L L mean a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. At the time of the M offence, D1 was 17, D2 was 22 and D3 was 24. M N N 58. It was submitted by Mr Kwong that D2 did not know the actual O age of D1. Mr Chong, on behalf of D3, submitted that as D3 only first met O D1 on date of the offence, D3 did not know the age of D1, D3’s act was P P therefore unintentional. D3 asked for a lower degree of enhancement. In Q Wong Chun Hin (王俊軒) CACC 381/2016: Q R R “11. This Court should first point out that use of a minor in S drug trafficking is an extremely evil act for the reason that it S would result in the conviction, long-term imprisonment and loss of future prospects of the mentally immature minor who is being T used. A robust approach must be taken against such an evil act T to protect minors from being harmed. U U V V  - 19 - A A B 12. In considering the range of enhancement, the court is B required to take account of the particular circumstances of the C individual case. The factual background relating to the C enhancement of sentence in respect of this factor can vary to a great extent, and therefore it is not appropriate for the court to D give explicit guidelines for the levels of enhancement. As a drug D trafficking offence itself is going to result in an extremely long E sentence, restraint should be exercised on the range of E enhancement arising from other aggravating factors in order to avoid an overly severe sentence. F F 14. …We reiterate that in Chan Ka Shing the Court of Appeal has stated as follows: G G “Drug trafficking is of course a very serious offence; no H offender should get off lightly. Using a minor in drug H trafficking is even more heinous. Anyone would find the crime of drug trafficking abominable; however, when I passing or enhancing the sentence, the court has still to I exercise restraint to avoid increasing the sentence J without limit, thus causing confusion and unfairness.” J K 59. I have considered the age difference of the defendants and the K role of the defendants. L L M 60. In Chan Ka Shing (陳嘉成) CACC 64/2011: M N N “25 When enhancing the sentence pursuant to section 56A(2) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, the court has to consider not O O only the percentage of the enhancement, but also the actual extent of enhancement.” P P 61. Having considered the relevant authorities and all the Q Q circumstances of the case, I enhance the sentence by 5 months (ie R approximately 9%) for D2 and D3 due to their using a minor in drug R trafficking. As such, for charge 1, the starting point for D2 and D3 is 60 S S months’ imprisonment, after one third discount for the guilty plea, the T sentence is 40 months’ imprisonment. T U U V V  - 20 - A A B B Charge 2 - Driving without a valid driving licence (D1) C C 62. The maximum sentence for driving without a valid driving D D licence, for the first conviction, is a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 3 E months. E F F 63. At the time of the offence, D1 did not hold any driving licence. G D1 was therefore fully aware that he was driving without a valid driving G licence. H H I 64. For charge 2, I take a starting point of 1.5 months’ I imprisonment, after one third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 1 J J month’s imprisonment. K K Charge 3 - Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (D1) L L M 65. The maximum sentence for the offence of using a motor M vehicle without third party insurance is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment N N for 12 months. O O 66. In HKSAR v Wong Chi Ming (HCMA 510/1999; unreported, P P 13 August 1999, at page 5) it was held that the seriousness of the offence Q of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance “…lies in the Q possibility of the victims in traffic accidents may be left without any R R compensation”. S S 67. In the present case, fortunately there were no injury or damage. T T U U V V  - 21 - A A B B 68. For charge 3, I take a starting point of 3 months’ C imprisonment, after a one third discount for a guilty plea to this offence, the C sentence is 2 months’ imprisonment. D D E Disqualification E F F 69. There is a mandatory disqualification of not less than 12 G months nor more than 3 years, unless the court for special reasons orders G that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the person not be H H disqualified. I I 70. I do not see there is any special reason not to disqualify D1. J J Having considered the facts of the case, I order that, for charge 3, D1 be K disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months. K L L TOTALITY (D1) M M 71. For charges 2 to 3, which are all traffic related, I order all N N sentences to be served concurrently. However, I find that charge 1 and O charges 2-3 are distinct in nature. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the O principle of totality, I order that 1 month of the sentence of charges 2-3 to P P run consecutively to the sentence of charge 1 and the balance be served Q concurrently. Q R R 72. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further S reduction of sentence for D1-D3. S T T U U V V  - 22 - A A B B CONCLUSION C C 73. The sentence for D1 is 37 months’ imprisonment and D D disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of E vehicles for a period of 12 months. E F F 74. Pursuant to section 8 of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance G Cap 567, as D1 is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the present case, G the rehabilitation order which D1 is now serving shall lapse. H H I 75. The sentence for D2 is 40 months’ imprisonment. I J J 76. The sentence for D3 is 40 months’ imprisonment. K K L L M ( K K Leung ) M Deputy District Judge N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V