A A
B B
DCCC 307/2020
C [2021] HKDC 493 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 307 OF 2020
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I AHMED WAQAR I
(also known as MOHD WAQAR AHMED)
J ---------------------------- J
K K
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
L Date: 21 April 2021 L
Present: Mr Wong YF Kenneth, Counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Pannu Peter, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for
N N
the defendant
O
Offence(s): [3] Transfer to another without reasonable excuse a travel O
document（沒有合理辯解而向另一人轉讓旅行證件）
P P
[4] Transferring an identity card to another person（將身分
Q 證轉讓給他人） Q
[5] Furnishing false particulars to a registration officer（向
R R
登記主任提供虛假詳情）
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
--------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
--------------------------------------
D D
E 1. Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty before me to 3 charges on a Charge E
Sheet which has a total of 6 charges on it. The charges he pleaded guilty
F F
to are Charges 3, 4 and 5, as follows.
G G
2. Charge 3 is Transfer to another without reasonable excuse a
H H
travel document, contrary to section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the Immigration
I Ordinance, Cap 115. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 13 December 2017, I
in Hong Kong, transferred to a person known as “Zaheer Khan” without
J J
reasonable excuse a travel document, namely one British Passport in the
K name of Ahmed Waqar. K
L L
3. Charge 4 is Transferring an identity card to another person,
M contrary to section 7AA(1)(a) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, M
Cap 177. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 13 December 2017, in Hong
N N
Kong, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, transferred to a
O person known as “Zaheer Khan” an identity card in the name of Ahmed O
Waqar.
P P
Q 4. Charge 5 is Furnishing false particulars to a registration Q
officer, contrary to regulation 13A of the Registration of Persons
R R
Regulations, Cap 177A. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 14 December
S 2017, in Hong Kong, made a statement to a registration officer, namely an S
Immigration Officer Wong Chun Mun, alleging that the identity card in the
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
name of Ahmed Waqar, had been lost, knowing that such statement was
C false in a material particular. C
D D
5. The prosecution asked that Charges 1, 2 and 6 be left on court
E file, not be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of E
Appeal. I so ordered.
F F
G Facts admitted by Mr Ahmed G
H H
6. On 13 December 2017, Mr Ahmed checked in at the check-in
I counter of Hong Kong Airline at Kowloon Station. The ground staff issued I
a boarding pass in his name for a flight from Hong Kong to Vancouver,
J J
Canada.
K K
7. On the same day, that boarding pass was used. A Pakistani
L L
male named Abbas was intercepted at Vancouver International Airport
M when he attempted to enter Canada with Mr Ahmed’s British Passport. He M
was also found to be in possession of Mr Ahmed’s HKID card.
N N
O 8. On 27 March 2019, Mr Ahmed revealed under caution the O
following:-
P P
Q (a) On 13 December 2017, Mr Ahmed checked in at the Q
Hong Kong Airline check-in counter with “Zaheer
R R
Khan” by presenting his own British Passport and
S received a boarding pass; he also sold his British S
Passport and HKID card to “Zaheer Khan”; and
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(b) He positively identified the Application Form for a
C permanent identity card that he submitted to the C
Immigration Department on 14 December 2017 in
D D
which he lied about losing his HKID card on 11
E December 2017 because he wanted to get a new HKID E
card.
F F
G Criminal record G
H H
9. Mr Ahmed previously enjoyed a clear record.
I I
Antecedents
J J
K 10. Mr Ahmed is aged 30 (27 at the time of the offences), K
educated to secondary or below level, has been a security guard, and lives
L L
in Kowloon.
M M
Mitigation
N N
O 11. Mr Peter Pannu of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Ahmed. O
P P
12. The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.
Q Q
13. Mr Ahmed was educated to secondary level and he has 4 other
R R
siblings. Parents have passed away. Sometime in July 2010, Mr Ahmed
S was diagnosed with brain cancer and underwent surgery that removed S
certain affected parts of the brain. Since then, he had presented symptoms
T T
of deterioration of his mental faculties. His responses and reasoning are
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
dulled and requires assistance from his siblings. He could not find a job
C and at the time of the incident was doing relieving security work. C
D D
14. He has been referred to a neurologist by a psychiatrist to
E attend to his condition. In this connection, Mr Pannu submitted on Mr E
Ahmed’s behalf copies of the following:-
F F
G (a) a medical memo under the hand of Dr Cheung Wai Him G
dated 25.2.2021 together with enclosures (25 pages);
H H
and
I I
(b) a letter regarding Data Access Request under the hand
J J
of Mr David Chen for Hospital Chief Executive of
K QEH dated 27.8.2020 with enclosures (4 pages). K
L L
15. For completeness and wholly unrelated to Mr Ahmed’s brain
M condition, Mr Pannu also submitted a photograph of a letter dated M
10.1.2021 certifying Termination of an Isolation Order previously issued
N N
under section 23 of the Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation.
O O
16. The reason for committing the offences was that Mr Ahmed
P P
was promised a sum of $20,000 for selling the passport and the ID card and
Q the sum would be paid upon the user of his document(s) successfully Q
reaching Canada. As the user Abbas was intercepted in Canada, Mr
R R
Ahmed would not be getting any payment from the crime.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. Mr Ahmed voluntarily attended the interview called for by the
C Immigration Department and admitted his crime and offered his pleas of C
guilty.
D D
E 18. Mr Pannu submitted on Mr Ahmed’s behalf two mitigation E
letters written respectively by Mr Ahmed’s brother and aunt. The contents
F F
are generally that since his surgery a few years ago, Mr Ahmed has had
G difficulty living a normal life and he was tricked by bad elements into G
selling his personal documents and re-applying for the same; that he needs
H H
the support of others even to live through daily life; that he has been a kind
I and honest person well regarded by family and friends. I
J J
19. It was submitted that the brain surgery on Mr Ahmed had
K impacted his faculties to the extent that he was vulnerable to abuse by those K
bad elements behind the scene.
L L
M 20. Mr Pannu referred to the sentencing cases of HKSAR v Ng M
Wing Fat, HCMA 504/2006 (and the case of R v Wong Wing Tong,
N N
HCMA 224/1990, referred to in para 6 therein but whose judgment is not
O otherwise available), and HKSAR v Liaqut Ali Khan, HCMA 278/2009. O
P P
21. Further, Mr Pannu asked the court to consider suspending the
Q sentence given the unique circumstances of Mr Ahmed. By referring to Q
Secretary for Justice v Wade [2016] 3 HKC 274, Mr Pannu reminded the
R R
court that it is now established that a sentencing court is not required to
S look for “exceptional circumstances” before it could suspend a sentence; S
all that is required is for the court to have regard to all the circumstance of
T T
the commission of the offence and the circumstance of the defendant.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 22. Mr Pannu submitted that Mr Ahmed was all along willing to C
assist the authorities in relation to the other personalities involved.
D D
However, prosecution seemed not to be interested.
E E
Psychiatric and medical reports
F F
G 23. On 22 March 2021, I ordered a psychiatric report and, if it can G
be arranged, a neurologist’s report on Mr Ahmed. What came back were
H H
a psychiatric report and a medical report.
I I
24. The psychiatric report confirmed that Mr Ahmed had a total
J J
excision of his left temporal lobe of brain in December 2008 because of
K brain tumor which was followed by an adjuvant radiotherapy of brain in K
the same year. An MRI scan in 2020 showed no recurrence of tumor.
L L
There was no record of epileptic seizure in the past 5 years. Investigation
M by electroencephalogram (EEG) in January 2021 did not show any M
remarkable findings but mild cerebral dysfunction, which can be
N N
compatible with his past surgery. Mr Ahmed has no past history of any
O psychiatric disorder. Mr Ahmed knew what he had done in the alleged O
offence was wrong. He admitted he had not made any serious mistakes at
P P
work as security guard and there was no particular difficulty for him to live
Q in the community. No sudden change of consciousness or epileptic seizure Q
was observed in the past few weeks. The Psychiatrist concluded by saying
R R
that there was no evidence of any psychiatric disorder or neuropsychiatric
S manifestation of brain disease found in Mr Ahmed; that it was likely that S
he understood what he did in the offence was wrong during the material
T T
time.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 25. The medical report started by saying that after the excision C
and radiotherapy done in 2008, Mr Ahmed defaulted in neurosurgery
D D
follow-up clinic. It also reported an admission of Mr Ahmed on 22 July
E 2020 to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital via A&E during which Mr Ahmed E
presented with two episodes of syncope on the night before, both with
F F
spontaneous full recovery. On admission, vital signs were normal and
G physical examinations including neurological system were unremarkable. G
The index episode was (sic) suspected to be vasovagal syncope.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
26. I have considered all the mitigation submissions.
K K
27. Of the sentencing cases referred to by Mr Pannu, for Charges
L L
3 and 4, I found the case of Liaqut helpful. I shall adopt the same starting
M point as suggested there, that is 18 months starting point for each of the M
present Charges 3 and 4.
N N
O 28. For Charge 5, I found the case of Ng Wing Fat useful and O
adopt the same starting point as suggested therein for a similar offence, that
P P
is 6 months starting point for the present Charge 5.
Q Q
29. Prosecution informed me that the Immigration Department
R R
having looked at the material supplied by Mr Ahmed was of the view that
S it was not of practical use. As such, that is normally the end of the matter S
as far as assistance to the authorities is concerned: see HKSAR v Kilima
T T
Abubakar Abbas [2018] 6 HKC 35, paras 83-85.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 30. Having looked at the psychiatric and medical reports of Mr C
Ahmed, I am not satisfied that the brain surgery on Mr Ahmed had
D D
impacted his faculties to the extent that he was vulnerable to abuse by those
E bad elements behind the scene. E
F F
31. Having heard Mr Ahmed give live evidence from the witness
G box, I do not accept Mr Ahmed was under any compulsion or duress when G
he committed these offences. The short reason is that when being
H H
interviewed by the Immigration Department under caution, although Mr
I Ahmed voluntarily admitted to the offences, he did not tell the officer I
anything about being threatened by others to commit the offences or the
J J
circumstances of the threat. When asked under cross-examination why he
K did not do so, he said he was frightened and he forgot. I do not believe him K
even bearing in mind the lower standard of proof and that he is a person of
L L
previous clear record, and there was a narrative in private doctor Dr
M Cheung Wai Him’s memo dated 25.2.2021 that “[Mr Ahmed’s] memory M
deteriorated and lost his way home recently”.
N N
O 32. Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty to the offences in time and shall be O
entitled to the full 1/3 discount. For his clear record, I will give him an
P P
extra month off after the 1/3 reduction in the case of Charges 3 and 4; and
Q 10 days off in the case of Charge 5. I can find no other mitigating factors Q
of sufficient weight to warrant any further discount.
R R
S 33. I do not see any grounds which can justify the suspension of S
the imprisonment term.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
34. The offences subject of Charges 3 and 4 happened at the same
C time; the sentences for them can be made to run concurrently with each C
other. Charge 5 is separate and adds to the gravity of the entire criminal
D D
conduct and ought to be reflected in the final sentence to be imposed.
E Subject only to the principle of totality, the sentence for Charge 5 should E
run consecutively to the other sentences.
F F
G (Mr Ahmed, please stand) G
H H
35. For Charge 3, Mr Ahmed shall go to prison for 11 months.
I For Charge 4, he shall go to prison for 11 months. For Charge 5, he shall I
go to prison for 3 months and 20 days. I order that the sentences for
J J
Charges 3 and 4 are to run concurrently with each other. I further order
K that 2 months of the sentence for Charge 5 is to run consecutively to the K
sentences for Charges 3 and 4, making an aggregate sentence of 13 months’
L L
imprisonment.
M M
N N
O O
( Isaac Tam )
P P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 307/2020
C [2021] HKDC 493 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 307 OF 2020
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I AHMED WAQAR I
(also known as MOHD WAQAR AHMED)
J ---------------------------- J
K K
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
L Date: 21 April 2021 L
Present: Mr Wong YF Kenneth, Counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Pannu Peter, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for
N N
the defendant
O
Offence(s): [3] Transfer to another without reasonable excuse a travel O
document（沒有合理辯解而向另一人轉讓旅行證件）
P P
[4] Transferring an identity card to another person（將身分
Q 證轉讓給他人） Q
[5] Furnishing false particulars to a registration officer（向
R R
登記主任提供虛假詳情）
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
--------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
--------------------------------------
D D
E 1. Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty before me to 3 charges on a Charge E
Sheet which has a total of 6 charges on it. The charges he pleaded guilty
F F
to are Charges 3, 4 and 5, as follows.
G G
2. Charge 3 is Transfer to another without reasonable excuse a
H H
travel document, contrary to section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the Immigration
I Ordinance, Cap 115. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 13 December 2017, I
in Hong Kong, transferred to a person known as “Zaheer Khan” without
J J
reasonable excuse a travel document, namely one British Passport in the
K name of Ahmed Waqar. K
L L
3. Charge 4 is Transferring an identity card to another person,
M contrary to section 7AA(1)(a) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, M
Cap 177. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 13 December 2017, in Hong
N N
Kong, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, transferred to a
O person known as “Zaheer Khan” an identity card in the name of Ahmed O
Waqar.
P P
Q 4. Charge 5 is Furnishing false particulars to a registration Q
officer, contrary to regulation 13A of the Registration of Persons
R R
Regulations, Cap 177A. Particulars are that Mr Ahmed, on 14 December
S 2017, in Hong Kong, made a statement to a registration officer, namely an S
Immigration Officer Wong Chun Mun, alleging that the identity card in the
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
name of Ahmed Waqar, had been lost, knowing that such statement was
C false in a material particular. C
D D
5. The prosecution asked that Charges 1, 2 and 6 be left on court
E file, not be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of E
Appeal. I so ordered.
F F
G Facts admitted by Mr Ahmed G
H H
6. On 13 December 2017, Mr Ahmed checked in at the check-in
I counter of Hong Kong Airline at Kowloon Station. The ground staff issued I
a boarding pass in his name for a flight from Hong Kong to Vancouver,
J J
Canada.
K K
7. On the same day, that boarding pass was used. A Pakistani
L L
male named Abbas was intercepted at Vancouver International Airport
M when he attempted to enter Canada with Mr Ahmed’s British Passport. He M
was also found to be in possession of Mr Ahmed’s HKID card.
N N
O 8. On 27 March 2019, Mr Ahmed revealed under caution the O
following:-
P P
Q (a) On 13 December 2017, Mr Ahmed checked in at the Q
Hong Kong Airline check-in counter with “Zaheer
R R
Khan” by presenting his own British Passport and
S received a boarding pass; he also sold his British S
Passport and HKID card to “Zaheer Khan”; and
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(b) He positively identified the Application Form for a
C permanent identity card that he submitted to the C
Immigration Department on 14 December 2017 in
D D
which he lied about losing his HKID card on 11
E December 2017 because he wanted to get a new HKID E
card.
F F
G Criminal record G
H H
9. Mr Ahmed previously enjoyed a clear record.
I I
Antecedents
J J
K 10. Mr Ahmed is aged 30 (27 at the time of the offences), K
educated to secondary or below level, has been a security guard, and lives
L L
in Kowloon.
M M
Mitigation
N N
O 11. Mr Peter Pannu of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Ahmed. O
P P
12. The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.
Q Q
13. Mr Ahmed was educated to secondary level and he has 4 other
R R
siblings. Parents have passed away. Sometime in July 2010, Mr Ahmed
S was diagnosed with brain cancer and underwent surgery that removed S
certain affected parts of the brain. Since then, he had presented symptoms
T T
of deterioration of his mental faculties. His responses and reasoning are
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
dulled and requires assistance from his siblings. He could not find a job
C and at the time of the incident was doing relieving security work. C
D D
14. He has been referred to a neurologist by a psychiatrist to
E attend to his condition. In this connection, Mr Pannu submitted on Mr E
Ahmed’s behalf copies of the following:-
F F
G (a) a medical memo under the hand of Dr Cheung Wai Him G
dated 25.2.2021 together with enclosures (25 pages);
H H
and
I I
(b) a letter regarding Data Access Request under the hand
J J
of Mr David Chen for Hospital Chief Executive of
K QEH dated 27.8.2020 with enclosures (4 pages). K
L L
15. For completeness and wholly unrelated to Mr Ahmed’s brain
M condition, Mr Pannu also submitted a photograph of a letter dated M
10.1.2021 certifying Termination of an Isolation Order previously issued
N N
under section 23 of the Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation.
O O
16. The reason for committing the offences was that Mr Ahmed
P P
was promised a sum of $20,000 for selling the passport and the ID card and
Q the sum would be paid upon the user of his document(s) successfully Q
reaching Canada. As the user Abbas was intercepted in Canada, Mr
R R
Ahmed would not be getting any payment from the crime.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. Mr Ahmed voluntarily attended the interview called for by the
C Immigration Department and admitted his crime and offered his pleas of C
guilty.
D D
E 18. Mr Pannu submitted on Mr Ahmed’s behalf two mitigation E
letters written respectively by Mr Ahmed’s brother and aunt. The contents
F F
are generally that since his surgery a few years ago, Mr Ahmed has had
G difficulty living a normal life and he was tricked by bad elements into G
selling his personal documents and re-applying for the same; that he needs
H H
the support of others even to live through daily life; that he has been a kind
I and honest person well regarded by family and friends. I
J J
19. It was submitted that the brain surgery on Mr Ahmed had
K impacted his faculties to the extent that he was vulnerable to abuse by those K
bad elements behind the scene.
L L
M 20. Mr Pannu referred to the sentencing cases of HKSAR v Ng M
Wing Fat, HCMA 504/2006 (and the case of R v Wong Wing Tong,
N N
HCMA 224/1990, referred to in para 6 therein but whose judgment is not
O otherwise available), and HKSAR v Liaqut Ali Khan, HCMA 278/2009. O
P P
21. Further, Mr Pannu asked the court to consider suspending the
Q sentence given the unique circumstances of Mr Ahmed. By referring to Q
Secretary for Justice v Wade [2016] 3 HKC 274, Mr Pannu reminded the
R R
court that it is now established that a sentencing court is not required to
S look for “exceptional circumstances” before it could suspend a sentence; S
all that is required is for the court to have regard to all the circumstance of
T T
the commission of the offence and the circumstance of the defendant.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 22. Mr Pannu submitted that Mr Ahmed was all along willing to C
assist the authorities in relation to the other personalities involved.
D D
However, prosecution seemed not to be interested.
E E
Psychiatric and medical reports
F F
G 23. On 22 March 2021, I ordered a psychiatric report and, if it can G
be arranged, a neurologist’s report on Mr Ahmed. What came back were
H H
a psychiatric report and a medical report.
I I
24. The psychiatric report confirmed that Mr Ahmed had a total
J J
excision of his left temporal lobe of brain in December 2008 because of
K brain tumor which was followed by an adjuvant radiotherapy of brain in K
the same year. An MRI scan in 2020 showed no recurrence of tumor.
L L
There was no record of epileptic seizure in the past 5 years. Investigation
M by electroencephalogram (EEG) in January 2021 did not show any M
remarkable findings but mild cerebral dysfunction, which can be
N N
compatible with his past surgery. Mr Ahmed has no past history of any
O psychiatric disorder. Mr Ahmed knew what he had done in the alleged O
offence was wrong. He admitted he had not made any serious mistakes at
P P
work as security guard and there was no particular difficulty for him to live
Q in the community. No sudden change of consciousness or epileptic seizure Q
was observed in the past few weeks. The Psychiatrist concluded by saying
R R
that there was no evidence of any psychiatric disorder or neuropsychiatric
S manifestation of brain disease found in Mr Ahmed; that it was likely that S
he understood what he did in the offence was wrong during the material
T T
time.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 25. The medical report started by saying that after the excision C
and radiotherapy done in 2008, Mr Ahmed defaulted in neurosurgery
D D
follow-up clinic. It also reported an admission of Mr Ahmed on 22 July
E 2020 to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital via A&E during which Mr Ahmed E
presented with two episodes of syncope on the night before, both with
F F
spontaneous full recovery. On admission, vital signs were normal and
G physical examinations including neurological system were unremarkable. G
The index episode was (sic) suspected to be vasovagal syncope.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
26. I have considered all the mitigation submissions.
K K
27. Of the sentencing cases referred to by Mr Pannu, for Charges
L L
3 and 4, I found the case of Liaqut helpful. I shall adopt the same starting
M point as suggested there, that is 18 months starting point for each of the M
present Charges 3 and 4.
N N
O 28. For Charge 5, I found the case of Ng Wing Fat useful and O
adopt the same starting point as suggested therein for a similar offence, that
P P
is 6 months starting point for the present Charge 5.
Q Q
29. Prosecution informed me that the Immigration Department
R R
having looked at the material supplied by Mr Ahmed was of the view that
S it was not of practical use. As such, that is normally the end of the matter S
as far as assistance to the authorities is concerned: see HKSAR v Kilima
T T
Abubakar Abbas [2018] 6 HKC 35, paras 83-85.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 30. Having looked at the psychiatric and medical reports of Mr C
Ahmed, I am not satisfied that the brain surgery on Mr Ahmed had
D D
impacted his faculties to the extent that he was vulnerable to abuse by those
E bad elements behind the scene. E
F F
31. Having heard Mr Ahmed give live evidence from the witness
G box, I do not accept Mr Ahmed was under any compulsion or duress when G
he committed these offences. The short reason is that when being
H H
interviewed by the Immigration Department under caution, although Mr
I Ahmed voluntarily admitted to the offences, he did not tell the officer I
anything about being threatened by others to commit the offences or the
J J
circumstances of the threat. When asked under cross-examination why he
K did not do so, he said he was frightened and he forgot. I do not believe him K
even bearing in mind the lower standard of proof and that he is a person of
L L
previous clear record, and there was a narrative in private doctor Dr
M Cheung Wai Him’s memo dated 25.2.2021 that “[Mr Ahmed’s] memory M
deteriorated and lost his way home recently”.
N N
O 32. Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty to the offences in time and shall be O
entitled to the full 1/3 discount. For his clear record, I will give him an
P P
extra month off after the 1/3 reduction in the case of Charges 3 and 4; and
Q 10 days off in the case of Charge 5. I can find no other mitigating factors Q
of sufficient weight to warrant any further discount.
R R
S 33. I do not see any grounds which can justify the suspension of S
the imprisonment term.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
34. The offences subject of Charges 3 and 4 happened at the same
C time; the sentences for them can be made to run concurrently with each C
other. Charge 5 is separate and adds to the gravity of the entire criminal
D D
conduct and ought to be reflected in the final sentence to be imposed.
E Subject only to the principle of totality, the sentence for Charge 5 should E
run consecutively to the other sentences.
F F
G (Mr Ahmed, please stand) G
H H
35. For Charge 3, Mr Ahmed shall go to prison for 11 months.
I For Charge 4, he shall go to prison for 11 months. For Charge 5, he shall I
go to prison for 3 months and 20 days. I order that the sentences for
J J
Charges 3 and 4 are to run concurrently with each other. I further order
K that 2 months of the sentence for Charge 5 is to run consecutively to the K
sentences for Charges 3 and 4, making an aggregate sentence of 13 months’
L L
imprisonment.
M M
N N
O O
( Isaac Tam )
P P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V