區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge K Lo28/10/2024[2024] HKDC 1830
DCCC389/2022
A A
B B
DCCC 389/2022
C [2024] HKDC 1830 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 389 OF 2022
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I KHAN IJAZ AHMED (D1) I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K Lo K
Date: 29 October 2024
L L
Present: Mr Jeevan Hingorani, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Wayne Walsh, SC, leading Mr David Boyton and Ms M
Elizabeth Herbert, instructed by Lee Law Firm, for the 1st
N N
defendant
O Offence: [1], [4] to [7] Common assault (普通襲擊) O
P P
-----------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
----------------------------------------- R
S S
1. D1 was convicted of 5 charges of common assault, contrary
T to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against T
the Person Ordinance, Cap 212 (Charges 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7) after trial.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Facts
C C
2. The facts of the case has been set out in the verdict delivered
D D
on 17 September 2024, and this court would not repeat the same here.
E E
Criminal record
F F
G 3. D1 has a clear record save for a spent conviction for driving G
offence in 2008.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
4. D1 is aged 50. He was born in Hong Kong and had received
K education up to university level. He is married with 4 children, 3 daughters K
and 1 son aged between 8 and 17.
L L
M 5. D1 is a businessman trading in electronics, earning about M
$150,000 per month. He is the main breadwinner of the family.
N N
O 6. It is said that D1 is a respected member in the Pakistani and O
Muslim community in Hong Kong.
P P
Q 7. It is also said that there was delay in prosecution as the matter Q
complained of happened more than 10 years ago before D1 was first
R R
arrested.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. Defence counsel previously submitted that D1 was told he
C would not be prosecuted when he was released from police bail on 12 July C
2019. That submission was later withdrawn.
D D
E 9. It is said there was a delay of around 5 years between the E
victim’s first report to the Labour Department and the subsequent police
F F
investigation, ie year 2012 and January 2017.
G G
10. Defence counsel said that “mistreatments” was a matter
H H
already reported to Labour Department and the authorities in the torture
I claim. The victim, however, did not make the criminal complaint to the I
police in 2012. This matter was also not referred to police for follow-up
J J
action and investigation by the authorities.
K K
11. Defence counsel submitted that in the victim’s judicial review
L L
application, the matter reported by the victim should have alerted the
M authorities to the situation 1 . On appeal, the Court of Appeal had no M
difficulty in “… upholding the Judge’s finding that the government has
N N
failed in its investigative duty…”2.
O O
12. 26 video recorded interviews over 8 months were conducted
P P
with the victim. Defence counsel submitted that this process resulted in
Q further delay. Later, the Department of Justice advised the police that Q
further statements were needed from the victim. Defence counsel said that
R R
it is not clear why this was not dealt with adequately by police in the first
S place. Further, despite obtaining advice from the Department of Justice in S
T T
1
ZN v Secretary for Justice & Others [2017] 1 HKLRD 559, para 160(20)(a) & (b)
2
ZN v Secretary for Justice & Others [2018] 3 HKLRD 778, para 195-196
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
March 2019, it was not until 10 months later that the police contacted PW1
C for further statement taking. C
D D
13. Defence counsel also submitted that due to the victim’s
E request for a specific interpreter, and long time taken by the Department of E
Justice to render their advice, there was further delays.
F F
G 14. He submitted that this delay has caused additional stress to D1 G
and that the significant delay in prosecution has profoundly impacted him,
H H
resulting in prolonged period of uncertainty and anxiety which affected
I both his personal and professional life. It is also submitted that the I
extended process of inquiry led D1 to operate under the assumption that he
J J
would not face charges, resulting in potential disruptions to his financial
K and familial arrangements. K
L L
15. Defence counsel urged this court to give D1 substantial
M sentencing discount and also consideration to suspend sentence of M
imprisonment by reason of the significant delay in prosecution.
N N
O 16. He further submitted that D1 had made charitable donations O
following this case. He handed to court letters from the Chief Imam of
P P
Hong Kong and the Pakistan Islamic Welfare Union, as well as letters from
Q D1 and his wife. These letters said that D1 used to help the Pakistani Q
Islamic Welfare Union to organise social and religious activities, that he is
R R
a devoted person to his family and community, a loving husband and a
S responsible father, and that he respects the law and value of the community. S
It is said that he is compassionate and has strong ethical principles.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
17. Defence counsel also referred this court to cases including:
C C
(a) HKSAR v Sham Kwok Kee, CACC 142/2013;
D D
(b) Mills v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for
E Scotland [2002] SCR 860, 877 (PC); E
(c) Secretary for Justice v Hui Siu Man [1999] 2 HKLRD
F F
236;
G (d) Secretary for Justice v Chan Kit Bing [2001] 1 HKLRD G
844;
H H
(e) Secretary for Justice v Lin Min Ying & Another [2002]
I 2 HKLRD 823; and I
(f) HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing, CACC 243/2012.
J J
K Discussion K
L L
18. Before sentencing, the court has carefully considered the
M mitigation submissions from defence counsel, the mitigation letters M
submitted and the authorities cited.
N N
O 19. Any person convicted of common assault upon indictment O
shall be liable to imprisonment for 1 year.
P P
Q 20. It is not disputed that: Q
R R
(a) the victim used to work for D1’s household in Pakistan
S before he came to Hong Kong on 1 May 2007 and he S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
worked for D1 in his office, though employed as a
C foreign domestic helper; C
D D
(b) D1’s family is rich and influential in Pakistan whereas
E the victim came from a poor family in the same village. E
F F
21. The period within which D1 committed these 5 offences were
G between 3 May 2007 and 7 December 2010. The severity of these offences G
did not stem from the physical pain or injuries inflicted on the victim, but
H H
rather the relationship between D1 and the victim, the readiness of D1 to
I commit the offences, and the very degrading nature of these assaults on the I
dignity and self-esteem of the victim. Clearly, D1 has no respect to the
J J
victim and treated him as someone he could manipulate and ill-treat
K anytime he felt like. K
L L
22. As an employer, D1 should provide the victim a safe
M workplace. Instead, he assaulted the victim frequently, thus breached the M
trust that the victim placed in him. He also exploited the victim by paying
N N
him not even in full wages for foreign domestic helper when the victim
O worked in his office, and on undisputed evidence before this court, long O
hours.
P P
Q 23. D1 assaulted the victim not once but 5 times over minor Q
things. This is a very serious case of common assault. The features of this
R R
case bear a lot of resemblance to that of slavery.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. D1 is convicted after trial. Considering the circumstances of
C the case, especially the relationship between D1 and the victim, this court C
finds that 5 months’ imprisonment appropriate for each of the 5 charges.
D D
E 25. D1 has a clear record, and from the letters before the court, he E
has made positive contribution to society. For this very reason, the court
F F
is willing to afford him sentencing discount of 1 month.
G G
26. Defence counsel also submitted that there is serious delay in
H H
prosecution in this case. For this reason, the prosecution has helpfully set
I out the chronology of events of this case as at 3 October 2024. I
J J
27. The matter in question occurred between 3 May 2007 and 7
K December 2010. Victim failed to report the matter to police immediately K
after their occurrences. This is understandable from the point of view of
L L
the victim because he was then working for D1, his work and
M accommodation was all being arranged and controlled by D1. His family M
was in Pakistan, in the same village as D1. According to the victim, D1
N N
could do a lot of things harmful to them. He had no support in Hong Kong
O and he could not get any help from his colleagues in D1’s office because O
the colleagues were all relatives or closely related to D1. Further, the
P P
victim could only speak Punjabi. In court, the victim did relate to court an
Q incident when he was intercepted in the street by police, he had to ring back Q
to his office and ask his colleagues to tell him what the police was saying
R R
as he did not understand what the police was saying, and vice versa. This
S was not disputed. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
28. The victim was also sent back to Pakistan by D1, which
C therefore made any report by the victim to Hong Kong authorities pending C
his return to Hong Kong impossible, in view of his limited resources.
D D
E 29. When the victim returned to Hong Kong in April 2012, he E
lodged claim in the Labour Tribunal for outstanding wages against D1. It
F F
is not clear whether in the claim form itself the victim did disclose the
G assault incidents to the Labour Tribunal, but from the transcripts of the G
Labour Tribunal mention hearings, the victim did mention that he was
H H
being beaten.
I I
30. The victim has also lodged torture claim and commenced
J J
judicial review proceedings against Director of Immigration and the others.
K In the torture claim and the judicial review proceedings, victim did relate K
the assaults by D1. Police started their criminal investigation against D1
L L
and others shortly after the delivery of judgment in the judicial review
M proceedings in December 2016. 26 video recorded interviews were then M
conducted by the police with the victim in relation to his allegations against
N N
D1.
O O
31. The victim here is a person who is totally illiterate. He could
P P
only understand and speak Punjabi (obviously with limited vocabulary).
Q The assault incidents happened within the 3 years and 7 months’ period, 7 Q
to 10 years prior. Taking statement from the victim surely was a difficult
R R
task.
S S
32. D1 was arrested 3 months after the last interview of the
T T
victim, after the police had conducted a detailed analysis of the case
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
coupled with communication with the Immigration Department and the
C Correctional Services Department. C
D D
33. The case was taken to the Department of Justice for legal
E advice at various times coupled with inquiries by police to the Immigration E
Department and the Correctional Services Department. There were further
F F
video recorded interviews conducted with the victim. D1 and others were
G brought to court in April 2022. G
H H
34. No doubt, the total time taken for the case to be brought to
I court is very long. Much time was spent by the police in awaiting result of I
the ongoing judicial review proceeding (HCAL 15/2015) and its appeal
J J
proceedings.
K K
35. The judicial review proceedings was taken out by the victim
L L
for the alleged failure by the Director of Immigration and others to protect
M him as a victim of human trafficking for servitude or forced labour after he M
was enticed to come to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper
N N
between 2007 and 2010. It was after the delivery of judgment of HCAL
O 15/2015, that police commenced the criminal investigation in January O
2017.
P P
Q 36. D1 was first arrested on 19 March 2018. There was some Q
delay in preparation of the case by the police to seek legal advice in August
R R
2018.
S S
37. Investigation by police in this case is clearly complicated by
T T
the way the assaults were disclosed and the ongoing proceedings as well
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
as the background of the victim. This court takes the view that the time
C taken for police investigation and analysis is reasonable. C
D D
38. This court does not find any delay from the moment this case
E was brought to court until the delivery of the verdict. E
F F
39. There exists delay in this case, but the unreasonable delay by
G the prosecution could not be said to be substantial or unduly long. G
H H
40. In the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Lau Ting Sing
I Jerome, CACC 279/2012, the court in paragraph 95 to 97 of the judgment I
sets out how delay may become a valid mitigating factor.
J J
K 41. Defence counsel submitted that as D1 was released from K
police bail on 12 July 2019 and he was only re-arrested nearly 3 years later,
L L
it is reasonable for him to expect that he would not be further pursued in
M the matter. M
N N
42. In this case, having regard to the circumstances under which
O the complaint of the victim came to light, the court finds albeit the total O
time taken for the case to be brought to court is long, the unreasonable
P P
delay by the prosecution exists, but the same is not substantial.
Q Q
43. However, the court accepts that the delay had caused
R R
additional anxiety and stress to D1. For this reason, the court will afford
S D1 sentencing discount of 1 month for each of the charges. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
44. Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to 3 months for each of the 5
C charges. C
D D
Totality
E E
45. Having regard to the overall culpability of the defendant, the
F F
court considers that a total sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment just and
G proportionate. Accordingly, 1 month of the sentence for Charges 4, 5, 6 G
and 7 are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, the rest to run
H H
concurrently.
I I
46. D1 is sentenced to a total of 7 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K K
L L
M ( K Lo ) M
Deputy District Judge
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 389/2022
C [2024] HKDC 1830 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 389 OF 2022
F F
G --------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I KHAN IJAZ AHMED (D1) I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K Lo K
Date: 29 October 2024
L L
Present: Mr Jeevan Hingorani, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Wayne Walsh, SC, leading Mr David Boyton and Ms M
Elizabeth Herbert, instructed by Lee Law Firm, for the 1st
N N
defendant
O Offence: [1], [4] to [7] Common assault (普通襲擊) O
P P
-----------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R
----------------------------------------- R
S S
1. D1 was convicted of 5 charges of common assault, contrary
T to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against T
the Person Ordinance, Cap 212 (Charges 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7) after trial.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Facts
C C
2. The facts of the case has been set out in the verdict delivered
D D
on 17 September 2024, and this court would not repeat the same here.
E E
Criminal record
F F
G 3. D1 has a clear record save for a spent conviction for driving G
offence in 2008.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
4. D1 is aged 50. He was born in Hong Kong and had received
K education up to university level. He is married with 4 children, 3 daughters K
and 1 son aged between 8 and 17.
L L
M 5. D1 is a businessman trading in electronics, earning about M
$150,000 per month. He is the main breadwinner of the family.
N N
O 6. It is said that D1 is a respected member in the Pakistani and O
Muslim community in Hong Kong.
P P
Q 7. It is also said that there was delay in prosecution as the matter Q
complained of happened more than 10 years ago before D1 was first
R R
arrested.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. Defence counsel previously submitted that D1 was told he
C would not be prosecuted when he was released from police bail on 12 July C
2019. That submission was later withdrawn.
D D
E 9. It is said there was a delay of around 5 years between the E
victim’s first report to the Labour Department and the subsequent police
F F
investigation, ie year 2012 and January 2017.
G G
10. Defence counsel said that “mistreatments” was a matter
H H
already reported to Labour Department and the authorities in the torture
I claim. The victim, however, did not make the criminal complaint to the I
police in 2012. This matter was also not referred to police for follow-up
J J
action and investigation by the authorities.
K K
11. Defence counsel submitted that in the victim’s judicial review
L L
application, the matter reported by the victim should have alerted the
M authorities to the situation 1 . On appeal, the Court of Appeal had no M
difficulty in “… upholding the Judge’s finding that the government has
N N
failed in its investigative duty…”2.
O O
12. 26 video recorded interviews over 8 months were conducted
P P
with the victim. Defence counsel submitted that this process resulted in
Q further delay. Later, the Department of Justice advised the police that Q
further statements were needed from the victim. Defence counsel said that
R R
it is not clear why this was not dealt with adequately by police in the first
S place. Further, despite obtaining advice from the Department of Justice in S
T T
1
ZN v Secretary for Justice & Others [2017] 1 HKLRD 559, para 160(20)(a) & (b)
2
ZN v Secretary for Justice & Others [2018] 3 HKLRD 778, para 195-196
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
March 2019, it was not until 10 months later that the police contacted PW1
C for further statement taking. C
D D
13. Defence counsel also submitted that due to the victim’s
E request for a specific interpreter, and long time taken by the Department of E
Justice to render their advice, there was further delays.
F F
G 14. He submitted that this delay has caused additional stress to D1 G
and that the significant delay in prosecution has profoundly impacted him,
H H
resulting in prolonged period of uncertainty and anxiety which affected
I both his personal and professional life. It is also submitted that the I
extended process of inquiry led D1 to operate under the assumption that he
J J
would not face charges, resulting in potential disruptions to his financial
K and familial arrangements. K
L L
15. Defence counsel urged this court to give D1 substantial
M sentencing discount and also consideration to suspend sentence of M
imprisonment by reason of the significant delay in prosecution.
N N
O 16. He further submitted that D1 had made charitable donations O
following this case. He handed to court letters from the Chief Imam of
P P
Hong Kong and the Pakistan Islamic Welfare Union, as well as letters from
Q D1 and his wife. These letters said that D1 used to help the Pakistani Q
Islamic Welfare Union to organise social and religious activities, that he is
R R
a devoted person to his family and community, a loving husband and a
S responsible father, and that he respects the law and value of the community. S
It is said that he is compassionate and has strong ethical principles.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
17. Defence counsel also referred this court to cases including:
C C
(a) HKSAR v Sham Kwok Kee, CACC 142/2013;
D D
(b) Mills v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for
E Scotland [2002] SCR 860, 877 (PC); E
(c) Secretary for Justice v Hui Siu Man [1999] 2 HKLRD
F F
236;
G (d) Secretary for Justice v Chan Kit Bing [2001] 1 HKLRD G
844;
H H
(e) Secretary for Justice v Lin Min Ying & Another [2002]
I 2 HKLRD 823; and I
(f) HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing, CACC 243/2012.
J J
K Discussion K
L L
18. Before sentencing, the court has carefully considered the
M mitigation submissions from defence counsel, the mitigation letters M
submitted and the authorities cited.
N N
O 19. Any person convicted of common assault upon indictment O
shall be liable to imprisonment for 1 year.
P P
Q 20. It is not disputed that: Q
R R
(a) the victim used to work for D1’s household in Pakistan
S before he came to Hong Kong on 1 May 2007 and he S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
worked for D1 in his office, though employed as a
C foreign domestic helper; C
D D
(b) D1’s family is rich and influential in Pakistan whereas
E the victim came from a poor family in the same village. E
F F
21. The period within which D1 committed these 5 offences were
G between 3 May 2007 and 7 December 2010. The severity of these offences G
did not stem from the physical pain or injuries inflicted on the victim, but
H H
rather the relationship between D1 and the victim, the readiness of D1 to
I commit the offences, and the very degrading nature of these assaults on the I
dignity and self-esteem of the victim. Clearly, D1 has no respect to the
J J
victim and treated him as someone he could manipulate and ill-treat
K anytime he felt like. K
L L
22. As an employer, D1 should provide the victim a safe
M workplace. Instead, he assaulted the victim frequently, thus breached the M
trust that the victim placed in him. He also exploited the victim by paying
N N
him not even in full wages for foreign domestic helper when the victim
O worked in his office, and on undisputed evidence before this court, long O
hours.
P P
Q 23. D1 assaulted the victim not once but 5 times over minor Q
things. This is a very serious case of common assault. The features of this
R R
case bear a lot of resemblance to that of slavery.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. D1 is convicted after trial. Considering the circumstances of
C the case, especially the relationship between D1 and the victim, this court C
finds that 5 months’ imprisonment appropriate for each of the 5 charges.
D D
E 25. D1 has a clear record, and from the letters before the court, he E
has made positive contribution to society. For this very reason, the court
F F
is willing to afford him sentencing discount of 1 month.
G G
26. Defence counsel also submitted that there is serious delay in
H H
prosecution in this case. For this reason, the prosecution has helpfully set
I out the chronology of events of this case as at 3 October 2024. I
J J
27. The matter in question occurred between 3 May 2007 and 7
K December 2010. Victim failed to report the matter to police immediately K
after their occurrences. This is understandable from the point of view of
L L
the victim because he was then working for D1, his work and
M accommodation was all being arranged and controlled by D1. His family M
was in Pakistan, in the same village as D1. According to the victim, D1
N N
could do a lot of things harmful to them. He had no support in Hong Kong
O and he could not get any help from his colleagues in D1’s office because O
the colleagues were all relatives or closely related to D1. Further, the
P P
victim could only speak Punjabi. In court, the victim did relate to court an
Q incident when he was intercepted in the street by police, he had to ring back Q
to his office and ask his colleagues to tell him what the police was saying
R R
as he did not understand what the police was saying, and vice versa. This
S was not disputed. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
28. The victim was also sent back to Pakistan by D1, which
C therefore made any report by the victim to Hong Kong authorities pending C
his return to Hong Kong impossible, in view of his limited resources.
D D
E 29. When the victim returned to Hong Kong in April 2012, he E
lodged claim in the Labour Tribunal for outstanding wages against D1. It
F F
is not clear whether in the claim form itself the victim did disclose the
G assault incidents to the Labour Tribunal, but from the transcripts of the G
Labour Tribunal mention hearings, the victim did mention that he was
H H
being beaten.
I I
30. The victim has also lodged torture claim and commenced
J J
judicial review proceedings against Director of Immigration and the others.
K In the torture claim and the judicial review proceedings, victim did relate K
the assaults by D1. Police started their criminal investigation against D1
L L
and others shortly after the delivery of judgment in the judicial review
M proceedings in December 2016. 26 video recorded interviews were then M
conducted by the police with the victim in relation to his allegations against
N N
D1.
O O
31. The victim here is a person who is totally illiterate. He could
P P
only understand and speak Punjabi (obviously with limited vocabulary).
Q The assault incidents happened within the 3 years and 7 months’ period, 7 Q
to 10 years prior. Taking statement from the victim surely was a difficult
R R
task.
S S
32. D1 was arrested 3 months after the last interview of the
T T
victim, after the police had conducted a detailed analysis of the case
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
coupled with communication with the Immigration Department and the
C Correctional Services Department. C
D D
33. The case was taken to the Department of Justice for legal
E advice at various times coupled with inquiries by police to the Immigration E
Department and the Correctional Services Department. There were further
F F
video recorded interviews conducted with the victim. D1 and others were
G brought to court in April 2022. G
H H
34. No doubt, the total time taken for the case to be brought to
I court is very long. Much time was spent by the police in awaiting result of I
the ongoing judicial review proceeding (HCAL 15/2015) and its appeal
J J
proceedings.
K K
35. The judicial review proceedings was taken out by the victim
L L
for the alleged failure by the Director of Immigration and others to protect
M him as a victim of human trafficking for servitude or forced labour after he M
was enticed to come to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper
N N
between 2007 and 2010. It was after the delivery of judgment of HCAL
O 15/2015, that police commenced the criminal investigation in January O
2017.
P P
Q 36. D1 was first arrested on 19 March 2018. There was some Q
delay in preparation of the case by the police to seek legal advice in August
R R
2018.
S S
37. Investigation by police in this case is clearly complicated by
T T
the way the assaults were disclosed and the ongoing proceedings as well
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
as the background of the victim. This court takes the view that the time
C taken for police investigation and analysis is reasonable. C
D D
38. This court does not find any delay from the moment this case
E was brought to court until the delivery of the verdict. E
F F
39. There exists delay in this case, but the unreasonable delay by
G the prosecution could not be said to be substantial or unduly long. G
H H
40. In the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Lau Ting Sing
I Jerome, CACC 279/2012, the court in paragraph 95 to 97 of the judgment I
sets out how delay may become a valid mitigating factor.
J J
K 41. Defence counsel submitted that as D1 was released from K
police bail on 12 July 2019 and he was only re-arrested nearly 3 years later,
L L
it is reasonable for him to expect that he would not be further pursued in
M the matter. M
N N
42. In this case, having regard to the circumstances under which
O the complaint of the victim came to light, the court finds albeit the total O
time taken for the case to be brought to court is long, the unreasonable
P P
delay by the prosecution exists, but the same is not substantial.
Q Q
43. However, the court accepts that the delay had caused
R R
additional anxiety and stress to D1. For this reason, the court will afford
S D1 sentencing discount of 1 month for each of the charges. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
44. Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to 3 months for each of the 5
C charges. C
D D
Totality
E E
45. Having regard to the overall culpability of the defendant, the
F F
court considers that a total sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment just and
G proportionate. Accordingly, 1 month of the sentence for Charges 4, 5, 6 G
and 7 are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, the rest to run
H H
concurrently.
I I
46. D1 is sentenced to a total of 7 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K K
L L
M ( K Lo ) M
Deputy District Judge
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V