A A
B B
DCCC 516/2022
C [2023] HKDC 324 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 516 OF 2022
F F
G ------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
V
I SINGH SUKHDEEP I
-------------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge E Lee K
Date: 28 February 2023
L L
Present: Miss Joyce Yan Poon, Public Prosecution of the Department
M of Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Antony Michael Delaney, instructed by Boase, Cohen &
N N
Collins, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
P P
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
---------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant was charged with one count of burglary,
C contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210, C
to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted accordingly.
D D
E Admitted facts E
F F
2. At all material times, the defendant was a Form 8 holder in
G Hong Kong. The Health Guard International Medical Centre is located on G
the Ground Floor, No 28 Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.
H H
The medical centre comprised of the ground floor and the mezzanine floor.
I At around 7.20 pm on 12 November 2019, after checking things were in I
order, the owner Mr Kum left the medical centre.
J J
K 3. At around 8.30 am the next day, when Mr Kum returned to K
the medical centre, he found the main glass door was smashed and there
L L
were signs of ransacking. Upon checking, cash of $100 and a gold
M ornament worth $800 kept in the glass display cabinet on the mezzanine M
floor were missing.
N N
O 4. The defendant’s left forefinger and middle-finger prints were O
found on the screen of the television set hung near the entrance on the
P P
ground floor. The defendant’s left forefinger print was found on the glass
Q door outside the glass display cabinet on the mezzanine floor. Q
R R
5. On 16 August 2021, the defendant was charged for burglary.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
The defendant’s background
C C
6. The defendant was born in India in 1989. He is now about 33
D D
years old. He is married and was living with his wife and his mother in
E India. He came to Hong Kong on 13 March 2014. He has a total of six E
previous records in Hong Kong, including three shopliftings; one theft
F F
from vehicle; one possession of arms or ammunition; and one burglary.
G G
Mitigation
H H
I 7. Mr Delaney filed a written mitigation submission on behalf of I
the defendant. It is submitted that, although the defendant is charged alone
J J
and without reference to any other, he was with his then roommate at the
K material time. K
L L
8. It is submitted that the defendant himself did not take the
M stolen items but the roommate did, when at the time the defendant was M
acting in a supporting role. The defendant understands that acting with
N N
others is potentially aggravating but wishes to be frank with the court, and
O makes it clear that he was acting in response to the suggestion of his O
roommate.
P P
Q 9. It is submitted that the burglary was wholly opportunistic and Q
amateurish without any sophisticated planning. The aggravating feature of
R R
being with another should be balanced by the fact that this is an admission
S against self-interest, as there is no such suggestion of any other party by S
the prosecution.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. It is also submitted that the fingerprint report crucial for this
C prosecution is dated 7 April 2020 and this burglary case could have been C
processed at that time. The arrest date for this offence is however 16
D D
August 2021, which, in the defence submission, evidences unaccounted
E delay in prosecution. E
F F
11. Mr Delaney supplemented this point in court today by
G submitting that, since May 2020, the defendant after having served his G
sentence for his last conviction had been discharged from the Correctional
H H
Services Department. He was then transferred to be detained by the
I Immigration Department, pending his deportation order. It was however I
not until 14 months later in August 2021 that the police went to arrest him.
J J
K 12. Miss Poon, for the prosecution today, fairly confirmed the K
above and helpfully prepared a chronology of events, MFI-1. It is
L L
confirmed by that chronology of events that on 30 May 2020, the defendant
M was discharged from the Correctional Services Department and was M
transferred to the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre for detention.
N N
O 13. It was not until 11 August 2021 that the Immigration O
Department conducted record search in preparation for the issuance of
P P
deportation order against the defendant and discovered that the defendant
Q was a wanted person. The matter was then reported to the police. Q
Eventually on 16 August 2021, the police arrested the defendant who was
R R
then under the Immigration Department’s custody.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. In order words, as the prosecution confirmed today, that 14-
C month period in between when the defendant was being kept in remand by C
the Immigration Department would not be counted for the purpose of
D D
section 67A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221, which
E provides that the length of a sentence of imprisonment shall be treated as E
reduced by the period during which a person was in custody by an order of
F F
a court made in connection with the proceedings relating to the sentence or
G the offence. G
H H
15. I shall deal with this at my final determination of the sentence.
I I
16. As to the defendant’s background, it is accepted that he came
J J
to Hong Kong from India in 2014 and is a Form 8 holder. He has been
K receiving financial assistance from ISSHK in a total sum of HK$3,000 per K
month since then and had been living in a cubicle unit in Sham Shui Po
L L
with his roommate.
M M
17. Having been away from his family in India for so long, the
N N
defendant informed the Immigration Department by way of a letter on 10
O June 2021 that he wished to go back to India. O
P P
18. The Immigration Department then issued a warrant for
Q detention against him on 7 February 2022, such warrant was renewed Q
continuously until 4 March 2022 when the Security Bureau issued a
R R
deportation order against him.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
19. As such, it was said that the defendant is now also detained
C pending removal or deportation from Hong Kong under section 32(3) of C
the Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115.
D D
E 20. The defence accepts that an immediate imprisonment of a E
starting point of 2 years and 6 months is a normal sentence for non-
F F
domestic burglary. The defence submitted a case authority, HKSAR v Fan
G Kit Hung [2009] 6 HKC 314, and submitted that only two factors, namely, G
the offence being committed by two or more people and the defendant
H H
having previous similar convictions are relevant to this case.
I I
21. Apart from those two factors, it is submitted that this is in fact
J J
a very small scale burglary and the offence was not planned or directed at
K objects of high value. Apart from the glass door of the medical centre, no K
substantial damage was done. Nobody was at the premises at the time and
L L
hence no one was injured.
M M
22. The defendant was an opportunist burglar, who acted upon the
N N
invitation of his roommate who told him the door of the medical centre had
O already been broken. It was the roommate who ransacked the centre. O
P P
23. It is accepted that the defendant has six criminal records in
Q total including one burglary and other offences of dishonesty. He is a Q
recidivist since arriving in Hong Kong in 2014.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. The defendant was arrested on 16 August 2021 that would be
C slightly more than a year and six months up to now. The defendant is C
genuinely remorseful for his latest act as can be seen from his plea of guilty
D D
tendered at the earliest opportunity.
E E
25. Once deported, he will be unable to step into Hong Kong
F F
again. This is also a form of punishment to the defendant already and
G should be taken into account. The defendant positively wishes to return to G
India as soon as possible. Finally, it is submitted that the court may
H H
consider a lower sentence than the norm.
I I
Sentence
J J
K 26. As rightly submitted by the defence, the usual starting point K
for non-domestic burglary is one of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment,
L L
and that is for a first offender of full age (see AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1
M HKC 215) M
N N
27. Although the defendant has six previous criminal convictions
O and one of them was a burglary and a few shopliftings or theft from vehicle, O
I do not consider him to be a repeat offender and therefore would not adopt
P P
a higher starting point for that.
Q Q
28. This is however a two-men burglary as admitted by the
R R
defendant, which makes it a more serious offence than usual and should be
S reflected in the starting point. I therefore decided to adopt a starting point S
of 2 years and 9 months, that is, with an enhancement of 3 months from
T T
the usual starting point.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 29. There is also an aggravating factor arising from the C
defendant’s Form 8 status, which should be reflected in the sentence. It
D D
was as early as in 2013 where the Court of Appeal observed in HKSAR v
E Sandadorj Altankhuyag and Another [2014] 1 HKC 206, had a commission E
of an offence by a foreign national who was the holder of a Form 8
F F
Recognisance could constitute an aggravating factor and could have his
G sentence enhanced. G
H H
30. It is because a foreign defendant, when committing a crime,
I he had abused the hospitality and liberty offered by the Hong Kong I
Government and his crime has affected Hong Kong’s reputation for order
J J
and security and gone to the very essence of Hong Kong’s integrity in the
K international community. K
L L
31. Since that judgment, the Court of Appeal had on various
M occasions enhanced or endorsed the enhancement by sentencing judges of M
sentences of defendants who were Form 8 holders. The enhancement was
N N
usually in the region of several months or around a year.
O O
32. In HKSAR v Don Amarasinghalage Don Chandra Janaka,
P P
CACC 377/2016, reasons for judgment given on 25 October 2017, where
Q the appellant was convicted of trafficking in about 25 grammes of ‘Ice’, Q
the Court of Appeal when sentencing the appellant afresh, enhanced the
R R
starting point by 9 months to reflect the appellant’s status as a non-
S refoulement claimant at the time of committing that trafficking offence. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
33. Also as stated in HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD
C 664, the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment observed C
that it was neither prudent nor possible to issue sentencing guidelines for
D D
such cases of Form 8 holders. Such enhancement was best left to the
E discretion of the sentencing judge or magistrate. But obviously, the greater E
the impact of the particular offence on the community at large and of Hong
F F
Kong’s reputation for order and security, the greater the enhancement.
G G
34. In that case, the applicant was convicted of trafficking in a
H H
substantial amount of cocaine and for that primary offence, the sentencing
I judge adopted a starting point of 8 years and 2 months. The enhancement I
to reflect the applicant’s Form 8 status for 1 year and 10 months was
J J
nevertheless found to be too severe by the Court of Appeal and the
K enhancement was eventually reduced to one of 1 year’s imprisonment after K
appeal.
L L
M 35. In a more recent decision, HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar M
[2020] 3 HKLRD 805, reasons for judgment handed down on 17 July 2020,
N N
the Court of Appeal at paragraph 32, when endorsing the principle that the
O amount of enhancement should be left to the sentencer’s discretion, O
emphasised that the enhancement must be substantial, otherwise it would
P P
have no deterrent value and that it generally should not be less than 6
Q months for serious offences. Q
R R
36. The Court of Appeal then, in the same paragraph 32 of the
S judgment recited its early observations in another case, HKSAR v Singh S
Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274. The amount of the enhancement would
T T
reflect the court’s assessments of the seriousness of offence and the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
severity of the adverse impact that the offence had on Hong Kong. Making
C the assessment would entail the court having regard to the nature of the C
offence, the circumstances of its commission, its actual impact on the
D D
victim, its potential impact on the wider Hong Kong community and finally
E its potential impact on Hong Kong’s reputation. The more serious the E
impact of the crime in the adverse way required by the authorities, the
F F
greater will be the amount of the enhancement. It should not be
G disproportionate to the starting point and should not result in a final starting G
point that is excessive for the seriousness of the crime.
H H
I 37. I noted that since the defendant’s arrival in Hong Kong in I
2014, he had committed a total of six offences on six occasions, excluding
J J
the current offence. That should be a factor to be considered when deciding
K on the extent of enhancement. K
L L
38. Having considered the nature of the offence, the
M circumstances under which it was committed and the fact that the defendant M
had repeatedly reoffended during his stay in Hong Kong, I am of the view
N N
that the appropriate enhancement to reflect the defendant’s Form 8 status
O should be one of 6 months. O
P P
39. That brings the starting point of 2 years and 9 months or 33
Q months to 3 years and 3 months or 39 months. The defendant’s timely plea Q
in this case should earn him the full one-third discount. The sentence
R R
would therefore become 26 months’ imprisonment.
S S
40. Finally I take into account the fact that the defendant had been
T T
kept in custody by the Immigration Department for 14 months unrelated to
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
this case and decided to exercise my discretion to reduce the final sentence
C by 8 months. C
D D
41. The final sentence is one of 18 months’ imprisonment and I
E so order. E
F F
G G
( E Lee )
H District Judge 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
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 516/2022
C [2023] HKDC 324 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 516 OF 2022
F F
G ------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
V
I SINGH SUKHDEEP I
-------------------------------
J J
K Before: HH Judge E Lee K
Date: 28 February 2023
L L
Present: Miss Joyce Yan Poon, Public Prosecution of the Department
M of Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Antony Michael Delaney, instructed by Boase, Cohen &
N N
Collins, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
P P
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
---------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant was charged with one count of burglary,
C contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210, C
to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted accordingly.
D D
E Admitted facts E
F F
2. At all material times, the defendant was a Form 8 holder in
G Hong Kong. The Health Guard International Medical Centre is located on G
the Ground Floor, No 28 Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.
H H
The medical centre comprised of the ground floor and the mezzanine floor.
I At around 7.20 pm on 12 November 2019, after checking things were in I
order, the owner Mr Kum left the medical centre.
J J
K 3. At around 8.30 am the next day, when Mr Kum returned to K
the medical centre, he found the main glass door was smashed and there
L L
were signs of ransacking. Upon checking, cash of $100 and a gold
M ornament worth $800 kept in the glass display cabinet on the mezzanine M
floor were missing.
N N
O 4. The defendant’s left forefinger and middle-finger prints were O
found on the screen of the television set hung near the entrance on the
P P
ground floor. The defendant’s left forefinger print was found on the glass
Q door outside the glass display cabinet on the mezzanine floor. Q
R R
5. On 16 August 2021, the defendant was charged for burglary.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
The defendant’s background
C C
6. The defendant was born in India in 1989. He is now about 33
D D
years old. He is married and was living with his wife and his mother in
E India. He came to Hong Kong on 13 March 2014. He has a total of six E
previous records in Hong Kong, including three shopliftings; one theft
F F
from vehicle; one possession of arms or ammunition; and one burglary.
G G
Mitigation
H H
I 7. Mr Delaney filed a written mitigation submission on behalf of I
the defendant. It is submitted that, although the defendant is charged alone
J J
and without reference to any other, he was with his then roommate at the
K material time. K
L L
8. It is submitted that the defendant himself did not take the
M stolen items but the roommate did, when at the time the defendant was M
acting in a supporting role. The defendant understands that acting with
N N
others is potentially aggravating but wishes to be frank with the court, and
O makes it clear that he was acting in response to the suggestion of his O
roommate.
P P
Q 9. It is submitted that the burglary was wholly opportunistic and Q
amateurish without any sophisticated planning. The aggravating feature of
R R
being with another should be balanced by the fact that this is an admission
S against self-interest, as there is no such suggestion of any other party by S
the prosecution.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
10. It is also submitted that the fingerprint report crucial for this
C prosecution is dated 7 April 2020 and this burglary case could have been C
processed at that time. The arrest date for this offence is however 16
D D
August 2021, which, in the defence submission, evidences unaccounted
E delay in prosecution. E
F F
11. Mr Delaney supplemented this point in court today by
G submitting that, since May 2020, the defendant after having served his G
sentence for his last conviction had been discharged from the Correctional
H H
Services Department. He was then transferred to be detained by the
I Immigration Department, pending his deportation order. It was however I
not until 14 months later in August 2021 that the police went to arrest him.
J J
K 12. Miss Poon, for the prosecution today, fairly confirmed the K
above and helpfully prepared a chronology of events, MFI-1. It is
L L
confirmed by that chronology of events that on 30 May 2020, the defendant
M was discharged from the Correctional Services Department and was M
transferred to the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre for detention.
N N
O 13. It was not until 11 August 2021 that the Immigration O
Department conducted record search in preparation for the issuance of
P P
deportation order against the defendant and discovered that the defendant
Q was a wanted person. The matter was then reported to the police. Q
Eventually on 16 August 2021, the police arrested the defendant who was
R R
then under the Immigration Department’s custody.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. In order words, as the prosecution confirmed today, that 14-
C month period in between when the defendant was being kept in remand by C
the Immigration Department would not be counted for the purpose of
D D
section 67A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221, which
E provides that the length of a sentence of imprisonment shall be treated as E
reduced by the period during which a person was in custody by an order of
F F
a court made in connection with the proceedings relating to the sentence or
G the offence. G
H H
15. I shall deal with this at my final determination of the sentence.
I I
16. As to the defendant’s background, it is accepted that he came
J J
to Hong Kong from India in 2014 and is a Form 8 holder. He has been
K receiving financial assistance from ISSHK in a total sum of HK$3,000 per K
month since then and had been living in a cubicle unit in Sham Shui Po
L L
with his roommate.
M M
17. Having been away from his family in India for so long, the
N N
defendant informed the Immigration Department by way of a letter on 10
O June 2021 that he wished to go back to India. O
P P
18. The Immigration Department then issued a warrant for
Q detention against him on 7 February 2022, such warrant was renewed Q
continuously until 4 March 2022 when the Security Bureau issued a
R R
deportation order against him.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
19. As such, it was said that the defendant is now also detained
C pending removal or deportation from Hong Kong under section 32(3) of C
the Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115.
D D
E 20. The defence accepts that an immediate imprisonment of a E
starting point of 2 years and 6 months is a normal sentence for non-
F F
domestic burglary. The defence submitted a case authority, HKSAR v Fan
G Kit Hung [2009] 6 HKC 314, and submitted that only two factors, namely, G
the offence being committed by two or more people and the defendant
H H
having previous similar convictions are relevant to this case.
I I
21. Apart from those two factors, it is submitted that this is in fact
J J
a very small scale burglary and the offence was not planned or directed at
K objects of high value. Apart from the glass door of the medical centre, no K
substantial damage was done. Nobody was at the premises at the time and
L L
hence no one was injured.
M M
22. The defendant was an opportunist burglar, who acted upon the
N N
invitation of his roommate who told him the door of the medical centre had
O already been broken. It was the roommate who ransacked the centre. O
P P
23. It is accepted that the defendant has six criminal records in
Q total including one burglary and other offences of dishonesty. He is a Q
recidivist since arriving in Hong Kong in 2014.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. The defendant was arrested on 16 August 2021 that would be
C slightly more than a year and six months up to now. The defendant is C
genuinely remorseful for his latest act as can be seen from his plea of guilty
D D
tendered at the earliest opportunity.
E E
25. Once deported, he will be unable to step into Hong Kong
F F
again. This is also a form of punishment to the defendant already and
G should be taken into account. The defendant positively wishes to return to G
India as soon as possible. Finally, it is submitted that the court may
H H
consider a lower sentence than the norm.
I I
Sentence
J J
K 26. As rightly submitted by the defence, the usual starting point K
for non-domestic burglary is one of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment,
L L
and that is for a first offender of full age (see AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1
M HKC 215) M
N N
27. Although the defendant has six previous criminal convictions
O and one of them was a burglary and a few shopliftings or theft from vehicle, O
I do not consider him to be a repeat offender and therefore would not adopt
P P
a higher starting point for that.
Q Q
28. This is however a two-men burglary as admitted by the
R R
defendant, which makes it a more serious offence than usual and should be
S reflected in the starting point. I therefore decided to adopt a starting point S
of 2 years and 9 months, that is, with an enhancement of 3 months from
T T
the usual starting point.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 29. There is also an aggravating factor arising from the C
defendant’s Form 8 status, which should be reflected in the sentence. It
D D
was as early as in 2013 where the Court of Appeal observed in HKSAR v
E Sandadorj Altankhuyag and Another [2014] 1 HKC 206, had a commission E
of an offence by a foreign national who was the holder of a Form 8
F F
Recognisance could constitute an aggravating factor and could have his
G sentence enhanced. G
H H
30. It is because a foreign defendant, when committing a crime,
I he had abused the hospitality and liberty offered by the Hong Kong I
Government and his crime has affected Hong Kong’s reputation for order
J J
and security and gone to the very essence of Hong Kong’s integrity in the
K international community. K
L L
31. Since that judgment, the Court of Appeal had on various
M occasions enhanced or endorsed the enhancement by sentencing judges of M
sentences of defendants who were Form 8 holders. The enhancement was
N N
usually in the region of several months or around a year.
O O
32. In HKSAR v Don Amarasinghalage Don Chandra Janaka,
P P
CACC 377/2016, reasons for judgment given on 25 October 2017, where
Q the appellant was convicted of trafficking in about 25 grammes of ‘Ice’, Q
the Court of Appeal when sentencing the appellant afresh, enhanced the
R R
starting point by 9 months to reflect the appellant’s status as a non-
S refoulement claimant at the time of committing that trafficking offence. S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
33. Also as stated in HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD
C 664, the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment observed C
that it was neither prudent nor possible to issue sentencing guidelines for
D D
such cases of Form 8 holders. Such enhancement was best left to the
E discretion of the sentencing judge or magistrate. But obviously, the greater E
the impact of the particular offence on the community at large and of Hong
F F
Kong’s reputation for order and security, the greater the enhancement.
G G
34. In that case, the applicant was convicted of trafficking in a
H H
substantial amount of cocaine and for that primary offence, the sentencing
I judge adopted a starting point of 8 years and 2 months. The enhancement I
to reflect the applicant’s Form 8 status for 1 year and 10 months was
J J
nevertheless found to be too severe by the Court of Appeal and the
K enhancement was eventually reduced to one of 1 year’s imprisonment after K
appeal.
L L
M 35. In a more recent decision, HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar M
[2020] 3 HKLRD 805, reasons for judgment handed down on 17 July 2020,
N N
the Court of Appeal at paragraph 32, when endorsing the principle that the
O amount of enhancement should be left to the sentencer’s discretion, O
emphasised that the enhancement must be substantial, otherwise it would
P P
have no deterrent value and that it generally should not be less than 6
Q months for serious offences. Q
R R
36. The Court of Appeal then, in the same paragraph 32 of the
S judgment recited its early observations in another case, HKSAR v Singh S
Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274. The amount of the enhancement would
T T
reflect the court’s assessments of the seriousness of offence and the
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
severity of the adverse impact that the offence had on Hong Kong. Making
C the assessment would entail the court having regard to the nature of the C
offence, the circumstances of its commission, its actual impact on the
D D
victim, its potential impact on the wider Hong Kong community and finally
E its potential impact on Hong Kong’s reputation. The more serious the E
impact of the crime in the adverse way required by the authorities, the
F F
greater will be the amount of the enhancement. It should not be
G disproportionate to the starting point and should not result in a final starting G
point that is excessive for the seriousness of the crime.
H H
I 37. I noted that since the defendant’s arrival in Hong Kong in I
2014, he had committed a total of six offences on six occasions, excluding
J J
the current offence. That should be a factor to be considered when deciding
K on the extent of enhancement. K
L L
38. Having considered the nature of the offence, the
M circumstances under which it was committed and the fact that the defendant M
had repeatedly reoffended during his stay in Hong Kong, I am of the view
N N
that the appropriate enhancement to reflect the defendant’s Form 8 status
O should be one of 6 months. O
P P
39. That brings the starting point of 2 years and 9 months or 33
Q months to 3 years and 3 months or 39 months. The defendant’s timely plea Q
in this case should earn him the full one-third discount. The sentence
R R
would therefore become 26 months’ imprisonment.
S S
40. Finally I take into account the fact that the defendant had been
T T
kept in custody by the Immigration Department for 14 months unrelated to
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
this case and decided to exercise my discretion to reduce the final sentence
C by 8 months. C
D D
41. The final sentence is one of 18 months’ imprisonment and I
E so order. E
F F
G G
( E Lee )
H District Judge 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
V V