A A
B B
DCCC 1059/2024
[2025] HKDC 736
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2024 E
------------------------------
F F
HKSAR
G G
v
H
TSUI KWOK LEUNG H
------------------------------
I I
J Before: HH Judge Kathie Cheung J
Date: 28 April 2025
K K
Present: Miss Juno CHOI, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
L Mr. Kevin WONG, instructed by Messrs. Chan, Leung & Co. L
assigned by DLA, for the defendant
M M
Offences: [1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物)
N [2], [4], [6], [8], [10], [12], [14] & [15] Failing to surrender to N
custody without reasonable cause (無合理因由而沒有按照
O O
法庭的指定歸押)
P P
[3], [5], [7], [9], [11] & [13] Using a false instrument (使用
Q 虛假文書) Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
1. The defendant is charged with 1 count of trafficking in
C dangerous drugs1 (1st charge), 8 counts of failing to surrender to custody C
2 nd th th th th th th th
without reasonable cause (2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 and 15 charges)
D D
and 6 counts of using a false instrument 3 (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th
E charges). He pleaded guilty to the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th to 15th E
charges but not guilty to the 2 nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th charges. Upon
F F
parties’ agreement, the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th charges are to be kept
G in court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave from the court. G
H H
Facts
I I
2. All the facts relating to the charges have been set out in details
J J
in the Amended Summary of Facts dated 24 April 2025 and admitted by
K the defendant. I am not going to repeat all the facts here. K
L L
3. In gist, on 11 May 2021, Customs officers at the airport
M intercepted an inbound parcel from the United States addressed to a “Tiger M
Lee” at the Address as set out in the Amended Summary of Facts. The
N N
parcel contained a pot containing 450 grammes of herbal cannabis. The
O estimated street value of the herbal cannabis is HK$67,500. On 17 May O
2021, the defendant went to Sham Shui Po Post Office and collected the
P P
st
parcel. He was then arrested by Customs officers (1 charge).
Q Q
R R
S 1
Contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 S
2
Contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221
3
Contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200
T T
U U
2
V V
A A
B B
4. Under caution upon arrest, the defendant admitted he
C collected the parcel for a friend called “Ah Wing” for a reward of C
HK$2,000. He would wait for Ah Wing’s instruction as to what to do after
D D
collecting the parcel
E E
5. The mobile phone in the defendant’s possession contained
F F
WhatsApp conversations about the parcel and its collection.
G G
6. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant
H H
stated under caution that he had known Ah Wing for 30 odd years but were
I not close. Ah Wing originally told the defendant to collect the parcel at I
the building where the parcel was addressed to. Later, he told the defendant
J J
to collect the “Notification of collection of parcel” card from the unlocked
K mailbox of the Address. On 15 May 2021, the defendant collected 2 K
notification cards from the mailbox.
L L
M 7. On 10 February 2022, the defendant appeared at the West M
Kowloon Magistracy regarding the case for the 1st charge. His case was
N N
adjourned to 28 March 2022 and he was granted bail until then.
O O
8. Due to Covid-19, the hearing for the defendant’s case was re-
P P
scheduled to 22 April 2022.
Q Q
9. On 22 April 2022, the defendant did not attend the court
R R
hearing. Someone on his behalf attended the hearing and showed the court
S the false proof indicating the defendant was infected with Covid-19 and S
T T
U U
3
V V
A A
B B
was under isolation. As a result, the defendant’s case was adjourned to 19
C May 2022 and his bail was extended on the same terms (3rd charge). C
D D
10. Thereafter, similar false proof of Covid-19 (and on one
E occasion with letter from the defendant) was provided to the court on 5 E
occasions between 19 May 2022 and 15 August 2022 while the defendant
F F
did not attend any of the hearings in between. On each occasion, as a result
G of the false proof, the defendant’s case was adjourned to another date with G
his bail extended on the same terms and on some occasions the warrant of
H H
arrest issued earlier on was cancelled. These lead to the 5 th, 7th, 9th, 11th
I and 13th charges. His case was last adjourned to 15 September 2022. I
J J
11. On 15 September 2022, the defendant did not attend the court
K hearing and a warrant of arrest was issued (14th charge). K
L L
12. On 12 May 2023, the defendant was re-arrested. He was
M brought to court on 13 May 2023. The defendant falsely claimed that he M
failed to attend his last hearing because he was infected with Covid-19 and
N N
was under an isolation order. As a result, his case was adjourned to 11 July
O 2023 and he was granted bail. O
P P
13. On 11 July 2023, the defendant attended the court hearing.
Q His case was adjourned to the afternoon of the same day for the defendant Q
to obtain his address proof and his bail was extended. However, the
R R
defendant did not attend the court hearing in the afternoon. A warrant of
S S
T T
U U
4
V V
A A
B B
arrest was issued (15th charge). On 10 March 2024, the defendant was re-
C arrested. C
D D
14. In subsequent cautioned interviews, the defendant admitted he
E wrote the the letters mentioned in the Amended Summary of Facts and had E
some recollection of the various false Covid-proofs.
F F
G Mitigation G
H H
15. The defendant is aged 49. He is single and has a girlfriend
I with whom he has a young son aged 3. The defendant has been I
unemployed since 2023. Before that, he had been working for a period of
J J
about 4 years as a casual labourer, earning about HK$15,000 per month.
K The defendant has 12 previous conviction records, 3 relating to drugs and K
5 relating to dishonesty.
L L
M 16. Mr. Wong for the defence submitted that the defendant’s M
previous conviction for trafficking in drugs was 20 years ago, which shows
N N
the defendant had at least disassociated himself from dangerous drugs for
O a considerable period of time. He urged this court not to consider the O
defendant’s previous conviction records when sentencing.
P P
Q 17. For the 1st charge, it was submitted that the defendant was Q
acting as a courier and there was no evidence to show the defendant was
R R
the mastermind behind the scheme. He was looking to make some quick
S S
T T
U U
5
V V
A A
B B
money because he had been out of work and it was hard to find work during
C the pandemic. C
D D
18. For the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges, it was submitted
E that all these related to the 1st charge. When the defendant was arrested for E
the 1st charge, it was being processed through the magistracy during the
F F
pandemic. It was during the pandemic that the defendant’s son was born.
G Unfortunately, his son was born with health problems, which required and G
still require regular medical follow-up treatment/examinations. As a result,
H H
the defendant was anxious for his son’s health and not ready to face the
I realities of dealing with the 1st charge which he had been arrested for. I
J J
19. In order to be able to spend more time with his son and put
K things off, the defendant unwisely and stupidly came up with the idea of K
using the false quarantine documents and submitting them to court. It was
L L
submitted that all the false Covid-proofs were very amateurish and poorly
M prepared with bad formatting and spelling mistakes. M
N N
20. For the 1st charge, it was submitted that although the revised
O guidelines 4 on trafficking in cannabis was handed down on 20 January O
2023, given the offence date of 1st charge is 17 May 2021, the old
P P
5 st
guidelines should apply. It was suggested that the starting point for the 1
Q charge would be about 3.5 months according to the old guidelines. Q
R R
S S
4
Revised guidelines in HKSAR v Ngyuen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329
5
Old guidelines in AG v Tuen Shui Ming & Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798
T T
U U
6
V V
A A
B B
21. In relation to the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges, Mr.
C Wong submitted that the purpose of the defendant using various false C
instruments was to prolong the length of time that would be required to
D D
process his criminal case in the magistracy (i.e. the 1st charge) and lengthen
E his time on bail. The documents were not used to obtain monetary E
benefit(s). It was accepted that the offences are serious as they misled the
F F
court into allowing the defendant to have his criminal case continually
G adjourned and be admitted to bail. It was submitted that the current G
situation was similar to a person making a false representation to an
H H
immigration officer with a false instrument so that he/she may enter, exit
I or prolong his/her stay in Hong Kong. I
J J
22. It was further submitted that if the analogy was accepted, the
K appropriate starting point for these offences would be in the region of 18 K
months6.
L L
M 23. Regarding the 14th and 15th charges, it was submitted that the M
court usually took into account the length of time the defendant had
N N
absconded. For each of the 2 charges, the period of absconding was about
O 8 months. It was suggested a starting point of not more 6 months would O
be appropriate7.
P P
Q 24. In relation to the totality of sentence, it was accepted that the Q
1st, 14th and 15th charges are of different nature to the using of false
R R
S 6
HKSAR v Yim Lee Kuen HCMA 1187/2002 S
7
HKSAR v Lee Justin DCCC 137/2018, HKSAR v Pang Ho Yin DCCC 1022/2011, HKSAR v Chan Chi
Kong DCCC 371/2020 and HKSAR v Lee Kee Shing DCCC 219/2016
T T
U U
7
V V
A A
B B
instrument offences but the 14th and 15th charges were a continuation of the
C false instrument offences. It was submitted that the sentences for the using C
false instrument offences are part and parcel of one long course of criminal
D D
activity and could run wholly concurrently to each other. It was also
E suggested that the sentences for the 14th and 15th charges could run wholly E
concurrently, and their sentence to run wholly concurrently with the total
F F
sentence for the using of false instrument offences. For the 1 st charge, this
G court was urged to order the sentence for the 1st charge to be partly G
consecutive to the sentence for other charges.
H H
I 25. Finally, it was submitted that the defendant has pleaded guilty I
at the first opportunity and should be granted the one-third discount. This
J J
court was urged to impose a lenient sentence on the defendant.
K K
Sentence
L L
M 26. While I note the defendant has a number of previous M
conviction records including 3 relating to drugs, given these 3 records are
N N
over 20 years ago, I will not consider them when sentencing.
O O
27. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offences. He is entitled
P P
to the usual one-third discount. Apart from that, there is no other mitigating
Q factor in this case justifying a further reduction in sentence. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
8
V V
A A
B B
A. Sentence for the 1st charge
C C
28. It is a settled principle of sentencing that an offender is to be
D D
sentenced upon the existing or prevailing guideline or tariff of sentence
E which existed at the time of the commission of the offence8. I agree with E
the defence that the old guidelines as set out in AG v Tuen Shui Ming &
F F
Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798 should be applied in this case. In view of the
G guidelines and the amount of herbal cannabis in this case is 450 grammes, G
the appropriate starting point should be 3 months’ imprisonment. Given
H H
the defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment.
I I
B. Sentence for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges
J J
K 29. There is no sentencing guidelines in respect of the 3rd, 5th, 7th, K
9th, 11th and 13th charges. I accept Mr. Wong’s submissions that these
L L
offences are similar to the offences of making false representation to an
M immigration officer. It is apparent from the facts admitted that planning M
was involved in the commission of these offences in that various false
N N
documents were prepared and arrangement for delivery of these false
O documents to the court was made. While the objective of the defendant was O
to delay his court case so that he could spend more time with his young
P P
son, this inevitably led to wasting of court time and resources and may also
Q cause unfairness to other court users. I consider the circumstances of the Q
offences are serious. Further, the defendant committed 6 offences within
R R
a period of 4 months, this is an aggravating feature. In the circumstances,
S S
8
HKSAR v Tsoi Shu & Ors [2005] 1 HKC 51 at para 60
T T
U U
9
V V
A A
B B
I consider the appropriate starting point for each of these charges to be 21
C months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant’s plea, the sentences for all C
these charges are reduced to 14 months’ imprisonment. I accept all these
D D
offences are part and parcel of the defendant’s plan to delay his court case,
E the sentences for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges are to run E
concurrently, making a total sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment for this
F F
group of offences.
G G
C. Sentence for the 14th and 15th charges
H H
I 30. Taking into consideration the length of period of absconding I
for both charges, I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge
J J
is 6 months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant’s plea, the sentence for
K each charge is reduced to 4 months’ imprisonment. The sentence for this K
type of offence should normally be served consecutively to the sentence
L L
imposed for the substantive offence from which the defendant absconded9.
M I do not see any justification to depart from such practice in this case. M
N N
D. Totality of sentence
O O
31. Having considered the totality principle, the sentence for the
P P
defendant is as follows:
Q Q
R R
S S
9
HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308 at para 58
T T
U U
10
V V
A A
B B
(1) 1st charge: 2 months’ imprisonment, whole sentence to
C run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, C
th th
11 and 13 charges;
D D
E (2) 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges: 14 months’ E
imprisonment for each charge, all to run concurrently making
F F
a total sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment;
G G
(3) 14th charge: 4 months’ imprisonment, 2 months of the
H H
sentence to run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd,
I 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges; I
J J
(4) 15th charge: 4 months’ imprisonment, 2 months of the
K sentence to run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd, K
5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges;
L L
M (5) total sentence for all charges is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
( Kathie Cheung )
R District Judge R
S S
T T
U U
11
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1059/2024
[2025] HKDC 736
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1059 OF 2024 E
------------------------------
F F
HKSAR
G G
v
H
TSUI KWOK LEUNG H
------------------------------
I I
J Before: HH Judge Kathie Cheung J
Date: 28 April 2025
K K
Present: Miss Juno CHOI, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
L Mr. Kevin WONG, instructed by Messrs. Chan, Leung & Co. L
assigned by DLA, for the defendant
M M
Offences: [1] Trafficking in dangerous drugs (販運危險藥物)
N [2], [4], [6], [8], [10], [12], [14] & [15] Failing to surrender to N
custody without reasonable cause (無合理因由而沒有按照
O O
法庭的指定歸押)
P P
[3], [5], [7], [9], [11] & [13] Using a false instrument (使用
Q 虛假文書) Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
1. The defendant is charged with 1 count of trafficking in
C dangerous drugs1 (1st charge), 8 counts of failing to surrender to custody C
2 nd th th th th th th th
without reasonable cause (2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 and 15 charges)
D D
and 6 counts of using a false instrument 3 (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th
E charges). He pleaded guilty to the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th to 15th E
charges but not guilty to the 2 nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th charges. Upon
F F
parties’ agreement, the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th charges are to be kept
G in court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave from the court. G
H H
Facts
I I
2. All the facts relating to the charges have been set out in details
J J
in the Amended Summary of Facts dated 24 April 2025 and admitted by
K the defendant. I am not going to repeat all the facts here. K
L L
3. In gist, on 11 May 2021, Customs officers at the airport
M intercepted an inbound parcel from the United States addressed to a “Tiger M
Lee” at the Address as set out in the Amended Summary of Facts. The
N N
parcel contained a pot containing 450 grammes of herbal cannabis. The
O estimated street value of the herbal cannabis is HK$67,500. On 17 May O
2021, the defendant went to Sham Shui Po Post Office and collected the
P P
st
parcel. He was then arrested by Customs officers (1 charge).
Q Q
R R
S 1
Contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 S
2
Contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221
3
Contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200
T T
U U
2
V V
A A
B B
4. Under caution upon arrest, the defendant admitted he
C collected the parcel for a friend called “Ah Wing” for a reward of C
HK$2,000. He would wait for Ah Wing’s instruction as to what to do after
D D
collecting the parcel
E E
5. The mobile phone in the defendant’s possession contained
F F
WhatsApp conversations about the parcel and its collection.
G G
6. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant
H H
stated under caution that he had known Ah Wing for 30 odd years but were
I not close. Ah Wing originally told the defendant to collect the parcel at I
the building where the parcel was addressed to. Later, he told the defendant
J J
to collect the “Notification of collection of parcel” card from the unlocked
K mailbox of the Address. On 15 May 2021, the defendant collected 2 K
notification cards from the mailbox.
L L
M 7. On 10 February 2022, the defendant appeared at the West M
Kowloon Magistracy regarding the case for the 1st charge. His case was
N N
adjourned to 28 March 2022 and he was granted bail until then.
O O
8. Due to Covid-19, the hearing for the defendant’s case was re-
P P
scheduled to 22 April 2022.
Q Q
9. On 22 April 2022, the defendant did not attend the court
R R
hearing. Someone on his behalf attended the hearing and showed the court
S the false proof indicating the defendant was infected with Covid-19 and S
T T
U U
3
V V
A A
B B
was under isolation. As a result, the defendant’s case was adjourned to 19
C May 2022 and his bail was extended on the same terms (3rd charge). C
D D
10. Thereafter, similar false proof of Covid-19 (and on one
E occasion with letter from the defendant) was provided to the court on 5 E
occasions between 19 May 2022 and 15 August 2022 while the defendant
F F
did not attend any of the hearings in between. On each occasion, as a result
G of the false proof, the defendant’s case was adjourned to another date with G
his bail extended on the same terms and on some occasions the warrant of
H H
arrest issued earlier on was cancelled. These lead to the 5 th, 7th, 9th, 11th
I and 13th charges. His case was last adjourned to 15 September 2022. I
J J
11. On 15 September 2022, the defendant did not attend the court
K hearing and a warrant of arrest was issued (14th charge). K
L L
12. On 12 May 2023, the defendant was re-arrested. He was
M brought to court on 13 May 2023. The defendant falsely claimed that he M
failed to attend his last hearing because he was infected with Covid-19 and
N N
was under an isolation order. As a result, his case was adjourned to 11 July
O 2023 and he was granted bail. O
P P
13. On 11 July 2023, the defendant attended the court hearing.
Q His case was adjourned to the afternoon of the same day for the defendant Q
to obtain his address proof and his bail was extended. However, the
R R
defendant did not attend the court hearing in the afternoon. A warrant of
S S
T T
U U
4
V V
A A
B B
arrest was issued (15th charge). On 10 March 2024, the defendant was re-
C arrested. C
D D
14. In subsequent cautioned interviews, the defendant admitted he
E wrote the the letters mentioned in the Amended Summary of Facts and had E
some recollection of the various false Covid-proofs.
F F
G Mitigation G
H H
15. The defendant is aged 49. He is single and has a girlfriend
I with whom he has a young son aged 3. The defendant has been I
unemployed since 2023. Before that, he had been working for a period of
J J
about 4 years as a casual labourer, earning about HK$15,000 per month.
K The defendant has 12 previous conviction records, 3 relating to drugs and K
5 relating to dishonesty.
L L
M 16. Mr. Wong for the defence submitted that the defendant’s M
previous conviction for trafficking in drugs was 20 years ago, which shows
N N
the defendant had at least disassociated himself from dangerous drugs for
O a considerable period of time. He urged this court not to consider the O
defendant’s previous conviction records when sentencing.
P P
Q 17. For the 1st charge, it was submitted that the defendant was Q
acting as a courier and there was no evidence to show the defendant was
R R
the mastermind behind the scheme. He was looking to make some quick
S S
T T
U U
5
V V
A A
B B
money because he had been out of work and it was hard to find work during
C the pandemic. C
D D
18. For the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges, it was submitted
E that all these related to the 1st charge. When the defendant was arrested for E
the 1st charge, it was being processed through the magistracy during the
F F
pandemic. It was during the pandemic that the defendant’s son was born.
G Unfortunately, his son was born with health problems, which required and G
still require regular medical follow-up treatment/examinations. As a result,
H H
the defendant was anxious for his son’s health and not ready to face the
I realities of dealing with the 1st charge which he had been arrested for. I
J J
19. In order to be able to spend more time with his son and put
K things off, the defendant unwisely and stupidly came up with the idea of K
using the false quarantine documents and submitting them to court. It was
L L
submitted that all the false Covid-proofs were very amateurish and poorly
M prepared with bad formatting and spelling mistakes. M
N N
20. For the 1st charge, it was submitted that although the revised
O guidelines 4 on trafficking in cannabis was handed down on 20 January O
2023, given the offence date of 1st charge is 17 May 2021, the old
P P
5 st
guidelines should apply. It was suggested that the starting point for the 1
Q charge would be about 3.5 months according to the old guidelines. Q
R R
S S
4
Revised guidelines in HKSAR v Ngyuen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329
5
Old guidelines in AG v Tuen Shui Ming & Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798
T T
U U
6
V V
A A
B B
21. In relation to the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges, Mr.
C Wong submitted that the purpose of the defendant using various false C
instruments was to prolong the length of time that would be required to
D D
process his criminal case in the magistracy (i.e. the 1st charge) and lengthen
E his time on bail. The documents were not used to obtain monetary E
benefit(s). It was accepted that the offences are serious as they misled the
F F
court into allowing the defendant to have his criminal case continually
G adjourned and be admitted to bail. It was submitted that the current G
situation was similar to a person making a false representation to an
H H
immigration officer with a false instrument so that he/she may enter, exit
I or prolong his/her stay in Hong Kong. I
J J
22. It was further submitted that if the analogy was accepted, the
K appropriate starting point for these offences would be in the region of 18 K
months6.
L L
M 23. Regarding the 14th and 15th charges, it was submitted that the M
court usually took into account the length of time the defendant had
N N
absconded. For each of the 2 charges, the period of absconding was about
O 8 months. It was suggested a starting point of not more 6 months would O
be appropriate7.
P P
Q 24. In relation to the totality of sentence, it was accepted that the Q
1st, 14th and 15th charges are of different nature to the using of false
R R
S 6
HKSAR v Yim Lee Kuen HCMA 1187/2002 S
7
HKSAR v Lee Justin DCCC 137/2018, HKSAR v Pang Ho Yin DCCC 1022/2011, HKSAR v Chan Chi
Kong DCCC 371/2020 and HKSAR v Lee Kee Shing DCCC 219/2016
T T
U U
7
V V
A A
B B
instrument offences but the 14th and 15th charges were a continuation of the
C false instrument offences. It was submitted that the sentences for the using C
false instrument offences are part and parcel of one long course of criminal
D D
activity and could run wholly concurrently to each other. It was also
E suggested that the sentences for the 14th and 15th charges could run wholly E
concurrently, and their sentence to run wholly concurrently with the total
F F
sentence for the using of false instrument offences. For the 1 st charge, this
G court was urged to order the sentence for the 1st charge to be partly G
consecutive to the sentence for other charges.
H H
I 25. Finally, it was submitted that the defendant has pleaded guilty I
at the first opportunity and should be granted the one-third discount. This
J J
court was urged to impose a lenient sentence on the defendant.
K K
Sentence
L L
M 26. While I note the defendant has a number of previous M
conviction records including 3 relating to drugs, given these 3 records are
N N
over 20 years ago, I will not consider them when sentencing.
O O
27. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offences. He is entitled
P P
to the usual one-third discount. Apart from that, there is no other mitigating
Q factor in this case justifying a further reduction in sentence. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
8
V V
A A
B B
A. Sentence for the 1st charge
C C
28. It is a settled principle of sentencing that an offender is to be
D D
sentenced upon the existing or prevailing guideline or tariff of sentence
E which existed at the time of the commission of the offence8. I agree with E
the defence that the old guidelines as set out in AG v Tuen Shui Ming &
F F
Anor [1995] 2 HKC 798 should be applied in this case. In view of the
G guidelines and the amount of herbal cannabis in this case is 450 grammes, G
the appropriate starting point should be 3 months’ imprisonment. Given
H H
the defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment.
I I
B. Sentence for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges
J J
K 29. There is no sentencing guidelines in respect of the 3rd, 5th, 7th, K
9th, 11th and 13th charges. I accept Mr. Wong’s submissions that these
L L
offences are similar to the offences of making false representation to an
M immigration officer. It is apparent from the facts admitted that planning M
was involved in the commission of these offences in that various false
N N
documents were prepared and arrangement for delivery of these false
O documents to the court was made. While the objective of the defendant was O
to delay his court case so that he could spend more time with his young
P P
son, this inevitably led to wasting of court time and resources and may also
Q cause unfairness to other court users. I consider the circumstances of the Q
offences are serious. Further, the defendant committed 6 offences within
R R
a period of 4 months, this is an aggravating feature. In the circumstances,
S S
8
HKSAR v Tsoi Shu & Ors [2005] 1 HKC 51 at para 60
T T
U U
9
V V
A A
B B
I consider the appropriate starting point for each of these charges to be 21
C months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant’s plea, the sentences for all C
these charges are reduced to 14 months’ imprisonment. I accept all these
D D
offences are part and parcel of the defendant’s plan to delay his court case,
E the sentences for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges are to run E
concurrently, making a total sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment for this
F F
group of offences.
G G
C. Sentence for the 14th and 15th charges
H H
I 30. Taking into consideration the length of period of absconding I
for both charges, I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge
J J
is 6 months’ imprisonment. Given the defendant’s plea, the sentence for
K each charge is reduced to 4 months’ imprisonment. The sentence for this K
type of offence should normally be served consecutively to the sentence
L L
imposed for the substantive offence from which the defendant absconded9.
M I do not see any justification to depart from such practice in this case. M
N N
D. Totality of sentence
O O
31. Having considered the totality principle, the sentence for the
P P
defendant is as follows:
Q Q
R R
S S
9
HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308 at para 58
T T
U U
10
V V
A A
B B
(1) 1st charge: 2 months’ imprisonment, whole sentence to
C run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, C
th th
11 and 13 charges;
D D
E (2) 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges: 14 months’ E
imprisonment for each charge, all to run concurrently making
F F
a total sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment;
G G
(3) 14th charge: 4 months’ imprisonment, 2 months of the
H H
sentence to run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd,
I 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges; I
J J
(4) 15th charge: 4 months’ imprisonment, 2 months of the
K sentence to run consecutively to the total sentence for the 3rd, K
5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th charges;
L L
M (5) total sentence for all charges is 20 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
( Kathie Cheung )
R District Judge R
S S
T T
U U
11
V V