A DCCC 372/2020 A
[2021] HKDC 452
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 372 OF 2020
D ---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Sum Chun-kit
G ---------------------- G
H Before: HH Judge Casewell H
Date: 31 March 2021
I
Present: Ms Angela Wong, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, I
for HKSAR
Ms Jacqueline Lam Hoi-yee, instructed by S C Ho & Co,
J assigned by DLA, for the defendant J
Offence: (1) Riot (暴動)
K K
L --------------------- L
Reasons for Sentence
M M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of
riot, contrary to sections 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order
O O
Ordinance, Cap 245, on 3 November 2019.
P P
2. The facts admitted show that, on 2 November 2019,
Q several thousand protesters gathered in Tsim Sha Tsui. They Q
eventually retreated to Mong Kok. By 2100 hours, hundreds of
R R
people were gathered at the junction of Nathan Road and Argyle
Street. Barricades were set up using metal railings, road signs
S S
and rubbish. East and South bound traffic was blocked.
T T
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 1 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 3. At around 2 am, a fire was set at Nathan Road near A
Argyle Street by several culprits. The defendant was seen to put
B garbage on the fire at about 2.03 am. B
C C
4. Shortly after that, another fire was set outside exit
C1 of Mong Kok MTR station. The defendant was observed putting
D D
Styrofoam boxes and wooden pallets onto the fire to increase its
E severity. This fire caused damage and burnt the sliding gate, E
the ceiling, the floor, the ceiling tiles and the staircase of
F the station. The damage to the station is estimated at $10,400. F
At the time the fire was set, the station was closed.
G G
5. The defendant was eventually arrested on 31 December
H H
2019. He made admissions after arrest and co-operated with the
I
police in their investigation. In summary, he admitted that he I
had joined the demonstrators in Mong Kok at around 0030 hours on
J 3 November 2019. He had thrown items on the road and put items J
on a fire that had been set by others, and he did that in order
K to accelerate the burning. He also put Styrofoam boxes over the K
fire by the C1 exit of the MTR station. He had worn a mask to
L L
avoid identification. He had done these actions for fun. He had
left some time after 2 am and went home.
M M
N 6. In summary, the defendant admits the 10th paragraph of N
the admitted facts, which are that at all material times the
O defendant, together with other persons unknown, took part in a O
riot at Nathan Road near the junction of Argyle Street in Mong
P P
Kok, in that they committed acts of breach of the peace
including setting fire and accelerating fire in the middle of
Q Q
the road and outside exit C1 of Mong Kok MTR station
R respectively, and on that basis the defendant has been convicted R
of the offence to which he pleaded guilty.
S S
7. As far as the defendant’s background is concerned,
T T
that can be seen initially from an antecedent statement taken in
the course of investigation and produced on 3 March 2021. The
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 2 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A defendant is now aged 20. He has no conviction record. He was a A
cook and porter prior to his current job as a bartender. His
B health condition is normal. B
C C
8. These bare facts have been fleshed out by both
mitigation and by detailed reports taken on the defendant from
D D
the Probation Services and also by the Correctional Services
E Department, when the defendant was assessed for his suitability E
for a Training Centre order.
F F
9. The Probation Services report is detailed and helpful.
G G
It sets out the defendant’s background and how he came to be in
this position before me today. I will read some extracts from
H H
the conclusion because I find it is a very well-considered and
I
detailed report and is very helpful to me. I
J 10. It says that the gathered information reveal that the J
accused, now aged 20, grew up in a tragic family where he was
K born as an illegitimate child and abandoned by his parents. The K
accused was under the care of his maternal grandparents since
L L
birth. It says that his academic performance has been far from
satisfactory.
M M
N 11. Nevertheless, the defendant would not continue his N
studies after school too but maintained gainful employment with
O income. The accused - that is the defendant - has made O
continuing stable financial contributions to his maternal
P P
grandparents, which is particularly important as both the
grandparents are retired. The defendant has not only provided
Q Q
financial support but also care and concern to his maternal
R grandparents. R
S 12. The report also shows that the defendant has co- S
operated with the police since the day after he was arrested and
T T
has pleaded guilty in court. He took part in the incident, he
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 3 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A says, merely for fun and he had no relationship with any A
political stand or anti-government position.
B B
13. A social worker who has known the defendant for many
C C
years has praised the defendant as a good hearted and caring
person who had not intended to destroy the peace of society. The
D D
defendant, according to the Probation Services, is remorseful
E and responsible for his wrongdoing and has learnt a bitter E
lesson which he said he would not forget.
F F
14. The defendant was in fact working right up until the
G G
time that he was remanded for this offence and was working for
PARKnSHOP at the time.
H H
I
15. I had also noted in the report that when talking to I
the Probation Services the defendant said that, while looking
J back, the defendant realised he was foolish. He has admitted his J
responsibility in the incident from the first day, co-operated
K with the police in investigation and pleaded guilty in court. K
L L
16. No recommendation of course is made in the background
report as none was asked for by the court.
M M
N 17. As far as the report for Commissioner of Correctional N
Services is concerned, the defendant is of course aged only 20
O and is said to be mentally and physically fit for detention in a O
training centre. He is considered suitable for detention in a
P P
training centre where he would undergo comprehensive programmes
that the court is well aware of. The defendant in fact expressed
Q Q
that as a preference for sentencing in his own case.
R R
18. I now turn to the suggested approach to sentence in
S these cases. S
19. The appellate level courts have considered the
T T
appropriate approach to sentence.
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 4 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 20. I have been referred to the case of HKSAR v Leung Tin A
Kei [2020] 4 HKLRD 462 and at page 463. In that case, the
B appellate court set out the general principles of approach that B
the court must take in its approach to sentencing. So the
C C
general principles applicable to sentencing of riot were:
D D
(a) maintaining the rule of law and public order;
E E
(b) punishment and deterrence - an immediate custodial
F sentence was generally appropriate for both F
unlawful assembly involving violence and riot;
G G
(c) the offender’s rationale for committing the offence
H H
was not a mitigating factor;
I I
(d) gravamen of the offence of riot was the
J participants acting in large numbers to achieve J
their common purpose with violence.
K K
21. Generally, the factors to be taken into account in
L L
sentencing included:
M M
(a) whether the riot was spontaneous or premeditated
N and how detailed the plan was; N
O (b) the number of participants; O
P P
(c) the degree of violence used, including whether
weapons were used, what kind and quantity;
Q Q
R (d) the scale of the riot, including the time, location R
and the number of areas;
S S
(e) the duration of the riot, including whether it
T T
continued after repeated warnings;
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 5 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A (f) the harm caused by the riot to persons and A
properties;
B B
(g) the imminence and gravity of threat caused by the
C C
riot;
D D
(h) the nuisance caused to the public by the riot;
E E
(i) the impact of the riot on community relations;
F F
(j) the burden on public expenditure caused by the
G G
riot;
H H
(k) the offender’s role and degree of participation in
I
the riot; and I
J (l) whether the offender committed any other offences J
during the riot.
K K
22. The sentence would depend on the circumstances of each
L L
case, with the sentencing in other cases not providing much
guidance.
M M
N 23. Those are the general principles that I will need to N
consider and bear in mind when determining the level and
O appropriate sentence for the defendant. O
P P
24. I have also considered the case of HKSAR v Yeung Ka
Lun [2019] 1 HKC 296, where the defendant faces charges of riot
Q Q
and arson when participating in a riot by setting fire to an
R urban taxi intending to damage it. This related to offences in R
Mong Kok at an earlier period. After conviction after trial, a
S starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment was adopted for the riot S
charge and 4 years 3 months for arson. Those sentences were
T T
described by the Court of Appeal on appeal as not being
manifestly excessive.
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 6 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
25. I have been referred to a number of mitigating factors
B which I have been asked to consider when determining the B
appropriate level of sentencing.
C C
26. Firstly, the defendant did not originate either fire.
D D
That is clear from the admitted facts. He was involved in
E maintaining fires that were already set. E
F 27. The defendant saw the disturbance on television and F
did not arrive until 0030 hours on 3 November although the civil
G G
disturbance had been in operation for a long period before that,
where it is said that the number of protestors had reduced down
H H
to the level of 20 to 30.
I I
28. The defendant’s participation in the riotous situation
J was not as a leader. J
K 29. No weapons were used that evening nor injuries K
suffered that the court is aware of.
L L
30. The defendant in his actions, his intention was to
M M
damage property not persons.
N N
31. The MTR station and its exit was closed at the time
O when the fires were set and the defendant added the accelerant O
materials to them.
P P
32. The defendant at the time of this incident was 19
Q Q
years of age. He exercised very poor judgment and is deeply
R remorseful and regretful. He has a clear record. He has a R
history that I have read of volunteering and is civic minded. He
S has pleaded guilty at what is the earliest opportunity and co- S
operated with investigators.
T T
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 7 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 33. Furthermore, he has offered to or may at this point A
have paid compensation to the MTR Corporation, which will cover
B the cost of all the damage caused by the fire. B
C C
34. When approaching sentence, the court must of course
consider the fact that the defendant has offered compensation as
D D
a mitigating factor. Restitution can be and is a mitigating
E factor the court must consider. E
F 35. In the case of HKSAR v Leung Shuk Man [2002] 3 HKC F
424, the Court of Appeal described restitution as a powerful
G G
factor in mitigating, which justified a reduction in sentence
beyond the usual one-third.
H H
I
36. In HKSAR v Tsang Pui Yu, Shirlina [2014] 5 HKC 111, I
the Court of Appeal also said there must be a specific discount
J in addition to the one-third discount for pleading guilty J
awarded to an offender who makes restitution.
K K
37. Now, I will outline my general and specific approach
L L
for this defendant, taking into account both the aggravating
factors set out in the commission of this what is a serious
M M
offence, for which a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed,
N where public property was damaged by fire. N
O 38. I consider firstly that although the defendant is said O
to be suitable for a Training Centre order, given the need for a
P P
generally deterrent sentence in respect of the events relating
to civil disturbances in November of 2019, I do not consider it
Q Q
would be an appropriate disposal for the defendant in this case.
R R
39. In sentencing, I bear in mind the factors already
S iterated earlier. In respect of the nature of the defendant’s S
role, his participation, the size and duration of the civil
T T
disturbance, and the fact that this occurred during a period of
heightened, elevated civil disorder in 2019, where events of
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 8 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A this nature took place with regularity, in determining the A
starting point of sentence, I take into account the true
B gravamen of the defendant’s involvement relating to the use of a B
fire to block roads and to cause damage to property in the early
C C
hours of the morning. Naturally, the use of fire to damage
property is serious. However, it belongs to a lesser class of
D D
severity in acts of riot where the unlawful violence is intended
E to cause harm to person. E
F 40. I note the general starting point adopted in earlier F
cases of up to 5 years’ imprisonment for riot cases. I consider
G G
the appropriate starting point in this case to be one of 63
months’ imprisonment. The defendant is naturally entitled to his
H H
one-third discount from that. By my calculations, the one-third
I
discount would lead to a final sentence of 42 months’ I
imprisonment.
J J
41. As I have earlier outlined, the defendant is of course
K entitled to a further discount from that sentence in respect of K
the restitution that he has and will pay to the court. I must
L L
clearly take into account the defendant’s payment of full
compensation and restitution in this case. I also take into
M M
account his youth and his full co-operation with the
N investigation. N
O 42. I will accord a further discount of 3 months’ O
imprisonment to recognise these mitigating factors.
P P
43. That leads to a final sentence in this case, by my
Q Q
calculation, of 39 months’ imprisonment.
R R
(Confirmation of calculation)
S S
44. That will be the sentence of the court.
T T
(Discussion re compensation order)
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 9 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
45. The compensation order that was offered of $10,400 is
B made. It will be taken from the bail, which will be applied, and B
the balance will be refunded to the defendant or his
C C
representative.
D D
E E
F F
G G
(T Casewell)
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
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 10 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A DCCC 372/2020 A
[2021] HKDC 452
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 372 OF 2020
D ---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Sum Chun-kit
G ---------------------- G
H Before: HH Judge Casewell H
Date: 31 March 2021
I
Present: Ms Angela Wong, SPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice, I
for HKSAR
Ms Jacqueline Lam Hoi-yee, instructed by S C Ho & Co,
J assigned by DLA, for the defendant J
Offence: (1) Riot (暴動)
K K
L --------------------- L
Reasons for Sentence
M M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of
riot, contrary to sections 19(1) and (2) of the Public Order
O O
Ordinance, Cap 245, on 3 November 2019.
P P
2. The facts admitted show that, on 2 November 2019,
Q several thousand protesters gathered in Tsim Sha Tsui. They Q
eventually retreated to Mong Kok. By 2100 hours, hundreds of
R R
people were gathered at the junction of Nathan Road and Argyle
Street. Barricades were set up using metal railings, road signs
S S
and rubbish. East and South bound traffic was blocked.
T T
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 1 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 3. At around 2 am, a fire was set at Nathan Road near A
Argyle Street by several culprits. The defendant was seen to put
B garbage on the fire at about 2.03 am. B
C C
4. Shortly after that, another fire was set outside exit
C1 of Mong Kok MTR station. The defendant was observed putting
D D
Styrofoam boxes and wooden pallets onto the fire to increase its
E severity. This fire caused damage and burnt the sliding gate, E
the ceiling, the floor, the ceiling tiles and the staircase of
F the station. The damage to the station is estimated at $10,400. F
At the time the fire was set, the station was closed.
G G
5. The defendant was eventually arrested on 31 December
H H
2019. He made admissions after arrest and co-operated with the
I
police in their investigation. In summary, he admitted that he I
had joined the demonstrators in Mong Kok at around 0030 hours on
J 3 November 2019. He had thrown items on the road and put items J
on a fire that had been set by others, and he did that in order
K to accelerate the burning. He also put Styrofoam boxes over the K
fire by the C1 exit of the MTR station. He had worn a mask to
L L
avoid identification. He had done these actions for fun. He had
left some time after 2 am and went home.
M M
N 6. In summary, the defendant admits the 10th paragraph of N
the admitted facts, which are that at all material times the
O defendant, together with other persons unknown, took part in a O
riot at Nathan Road near the junction of Argyle Street in Mong
P P
Kok, in that they committed acts of breach of the peace
including setting fire and accelerating fire in the middle of
Q Q
the road and outside exit C1 of Mong Kok MTR station
R respectively, and on that basis the defendant has been convicted R
of the offence to which he pleaded guilty.
S S
7. As far as the defendant’s background is concerned,
T T
that can be seen initially from an antecedent statement taken in
the course of investigation and produced on 3 March 2021. The
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 2 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A defendant is now aged 20. He has no conviction record. He was a A
cook and porter prior to his current job as a bartender. His
B health condition is normal. B
C C
8. These bare facts have been fleshed out by both
mitigation and by detailed reports taken on the defendant from
D D
the Probation Services and also by the Correctional Services
E Department, when the defendant was assessed for his suitability E
for a Training Centre order.
F F
9. The Probation Services report is detailed and helpful.
G G
It sets out the defendant’s background and how he came to be in
this position before me today. I will read some extracts from
H H
the conclusion because I find it is a very well-considered and
I
detailed report and is very helpful to me. I
J 10. It says that the gathered information reveal that the J
accused, now aged 20, grew up in a tragic family where he was
K born as an illegitimate child and abandoned by his parents. The K
accused was under the care of his maternal grandparents since
L L
birth. It says that his academic performance has been far from
satisfactory.
M M
N 11. Nevertheless, the defendant would not continue his N
studies after school too but maintained gainful employment with
O income. The accused - that is the defendant - has made O
continuing stable financial contributions to his maternal
P P
grandparents, which is particularly important as both the
grandparents are retired. The defendant has not only provided
Q Q
financial support but also care and concern to his maternal
R grandparents. R
S 12. The report also shows that the defendant has co- S
operated with the police since the day after he was arrested and
T T
has pleaded guilty in court. He took part in the incident, he
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 3 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A says, merely for fun and he had no relationship with any A
political stand or anti-government position.
B B
13. A social worker who has known the defendant for many
C C
years has praised the defendant as a good hearted and caring
person who had not intended to destroy the peace of society. The
D D
defendant, according to the Probation Services, is remorseful
E and responsible for his wrongdoing and has learnt a bitter E
lesson which he said he would not forget.
F F
14. The defendant was in fact working right up until the
G G
time that he was remanded for this offence and was working for
PARKnSHOP at the time.
H H
I
15. I had also noted in the report that when talking to I
the Probation Services the defendant said that, while looking
J back, the defendant realised he was foolish. He has admitted his J
responsibility in the incident from the first day, co-operated
K with the police in investigation and pleaded guilty in court. K
L L
16. No recommendation of course is made in the background
report as none was asked for by the court.
M M
N 17. As far as the report for Commissioner of Correctional N
Services is concerned, the defendant is of course aged only 20
O and is said to be mentally and physically fit for detention in a O
training centre. He is considered suitable for detention in a
P P
training centre where he would undergo comprehensive programmes
that the court is well aware of. The defendant in fact expressed
Q Q
that as a preference for sentencing in his own case.
R R
18. I now turn to the suggested approach to sentence in
S these cases. S
19. The appellate level courts have considered the
T T
appropriate approach to sentence.
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 4 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 20. I have been referred to the case of HKSAR v Leung Tin A
Kei [2020] 4 HKLRD 462 and at page 463. In that case, the
B appellate court set out the general principles of approach that B
the court must take in its approach to sentencing. So the
C C
general principles applicable to sentencing of riot were:
D D
(a) maintaining the rule of law and public order;
E E
(b) punishment and deterrence - an immediate custodial
F sentence was generally appropriate for both F
unlawful assembly involving violence and riot;
G G
(c) the offender’s rationale for committing the offence
H H
was not a mitigating factor;
I I
(d) gravamen of the offence of riot was the
J participants acting in large numbers to achieve J
their common purpose with violence.
K K
21. Generally, the factors to be taken into account in
L L
sentencing included:
M M
(a) whether the riot was spontaneous or premeditated
N and how detailed the plan was; N
O (b) the number of participants; O
P P
(c) the degree of violence used, including whether
weapons were used, what kind and quantity;
Q Q
R (d) the scale of the riot, including the time, location R
and the number of areas;
S S
(e) the duration of the riot, including whether it
T T
continued after repeated warnings;
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 5 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A (f) the harm caused by the riot to persons and A
properties;
B B
(g) the imminence and gravity of threat caused by the
C C
riot;
D D
(h) the nuisance caused to the public by the riot;
E E
(i) the impact of the riot on community relations;
F F
(j) the burden on public expenditure caused by the
G G
riot;
H H
(k) the offender’s role and degree of participation in
I
the riot; and I
J (l) whether the offender committed any other offences J
during the riot.
K K
22. The sentence would depend on the circumstances of each
L L
case, with the sentencing in other cases not providing much
guidance.
M M
N 23. Those are the general principles that I will need to N
consider and bear in mind when determining the level and
O appropriate sentence for the defendant. O
P P
24. I have also considered the case of HKSAR v Yeung Ka
Lun [2019] 1 HKC 296, where the defendant faces charges of riot
Q Q
and arson when participating in a riot by setting fire to an
R urban taxi intending to damage it. This related to offences in R
Mong Kok at an earlier period. After conviction after trial, a
S starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment was adopted for the riot S
charge and 4 years 3 months for arson. Those sentences were
T T
described by the Court of Appeal on appeal as not being
manifestly excessive.
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 6 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
25. I have been referred to a number of mitigating factors
B which I have been asked to consider when determining the B
appropriate level of sentencing.
C C
26. Firstly, the defendant did not originate either fire.
D D
That is clear from the admitted facts. He was involved in
E maintaining fires that were already set. E
F 27. The defendant saw the disturbance on television and F
did not arrive until 0030 hours on 3 November although the civil
G G
disturbance had been in operation for a long period before that,
where it is said that the number of protestors had reduced down
H H
to the level of 20 to 30.
I I
28. The defendant’s participation in the riotous situation
J was not as a leader. J
K 29. No weapons were used that evening nor injuries K
suffered that the court is aware of.
L L
30. The defendant in his actions, his intention was to
M M
damage property not persons.
N N
31. The MTR station and its exit was closed at the time
O when the fires were set and the defendant added the accelerant O
materials to them.
P P
32. The defendant at the time of this incident was 19
Q Q
years of age. He exercised very poor judgment and is deeply
R remorseful and regretful. He has a clear record. He has a R
history that I have read of volunteering and is civic minded. He
S has pleaded guilty at what is the earliest opportunity and co- S
operated with investigators.
T T
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 7 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A 33. Furthermore, he has offered to or may at this point A
have paid compensation to the MTR Corporation, which will cover
B the cost of all the damage caused by the fire. B
C C
34. When approaching sentence, the court must of course
consider the fact that the defendant has offered compensation as
D D
a mitigating factor. Restitution can be and is a mitigating
E factor the court must consider. E
F 35. In the case of HKSAR v Leung Shuk Man [2002] 3 HKC F
424, the Court of Appeal described restitution as a powerful
G G
factor in mitigating, which justified a reduction in sentence
beyond the usual one-third.
H H
I
36. In HKSAR v Tsang Pui Yu, Shirlina [2014] 5 HKC 111, I
the Court of Appeal also said there must be a specific discount
J in addition to the one-third discount for pleading guilty J
awarded to an offender who makes restitution.
K K
37. Now, I will outline my general and specific approach
L L
for this defendant, taking into account both the aggravating
factors set out in the commission of this what is a serious
M M
offence, for which a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed,
N where public property was damaged by fire. N
O 38. I consider firstly that although the defendant is said O
to be suitable for a Training Centre order, given the need for a
P P
generally deterrent sentence in respect of the events relating
to civil disturbances in November of 2019, I do not consider it
Q Q
would be an appropriate disposal for the defendant in this case.
R R
39. In sentencing, I bear in mind the factors already
S iterated earlier. In respect of the nature of the defendant’s S
role, his participation, the size and duration of the civil
T T
disturbance, and the fact that this occurred during a period of
heightened, elevated civil disorder in 2019, where events of
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 8 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A this nature took place with regularity, in determining the A
starting point of sentence, I take into account the true
B gravamen of the defendant’s involvement relating to the use of a B
fire to block roads and to cause damage to property in the early
C C
hours of the morning. Naturally, the use of fire to damage
property is serious. However, it belongs to a lesser class of
D D
severity in acts of riot where the unlawful violence is intended
E to cause harm to person. E
F 40. I note the general starting point adopted in earlier F
cases of up to 5 years’ imprisonment for riot cases. I consider
G G
the appropriate starting point in this case to be one of 63
months’ imprisonment. The defendant is naturally entitled to his
H H
one-third discount from that. By my calculations, the one-third
I
discount would lead to a final sentence of 42 months’ I
imprisonment.
J J
41. As I have earlier outlined, the defendant is of course
K entitled to a further discount from that sentence in respect of K
the restitution that he has and will pay to the court. I must
L L
clearly take into account the defendant’s payment of full
compensation and restitution in this case. I also take into
M M
account his youth and his full co-operation with the
N investigation. N
O 42. I will accord a further discount of 3 months’ O
imprisonment to recognise these mitigating factors.
P P
43. That leads to a final sentence in this case, by my
Q Q
calculation, of 39 months’ imprisonment.
R R
(Confirmation of calculation)
S S
44. That will be the sentence of the court.
T T
(Discussion re compensation order)
U U
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 9 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
45. The compensation order that was offered of $10,400 is
B made. It will be taken from the bail, which will be applied, and B
the balance will be refunded to the defendant or his
C C
representative.
D D
E E
F F
G G
(T Casewell)
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
CRT7/31.3.2021/ML 10 DCCC 372/2020(1)/Sentence
V V