區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai8/12/2016
DCCC923/2016
A A
B DCCC 923/2016 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2016
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
ZHANG Guangli
H H
-----------------
I I
J J
Before : Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai in Court
K K
Date of Sentence : 8th December 2016 at 11:55 a.m.
L Present : Miss Sheroy Tam, Senior Public Prosecutor, L
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
M M
Mr. Patrick Chow Kam-leong, of Messrs. Tang,
N Wong & Chow, assigned by the Director of Legal N
Aid, for the Defendant
O O
Offences : (1) Theft
P (2) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of P
the Director of Immigration after having landed
Q Q
unlawfully in Hong Kong
R R
S
------------------------------------------- S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T T
-------------------------------------------
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleads guilty to two counts on the indictment,
C Count 1 of theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and C
Count 2 of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director
D D
of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong contrary to
E section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. E
F F
G
Facts G
2. At about 3.40 a.m. on 9 July, 2016, a party of police officers
H H
conducting an anti-illegal immigrant operation at the hillside of Tai Lam
I Wu Road, Sai Kung in Kowloon saw a campsite, consisting of a tent built I
by wooden blocks as base and covered with plastic sheets, a cooking area
J J
covered by a plastic sheet and an open area with wooden sticks set up for
K K
hanging clothes. The defendant was seen sleeping on the ground inside the
L
tent. When a police officer was about to approach, the defendant suddenly L
stood up and tried to run away. The police officer immediately declared
M M
‘police’ to the defendant and caught the defendant’s left hand. The
N defendant struggled with the police officers but was eventually pushed to N
the ground. The defendant was asked in Cantonese why he wanted to run
O O
away and the defendant answered that he had entered Hong Kong illegally
P 3 days previously from Mainland China so he was scared when he saw P
other people coming around.
Q Q
R R
3. The police officers searched the tent and found 2 rucksacks
S S
lying next to where the defendant was sitting. The defendant said that the
T
two rucksacks belonged to him, and there were ‘Chen Xiang’ wood chips T
cut by him in one, and the other contained a hoe, a knife and a sickle.
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
4. Upon checking the rucksacks, one was found to contain 4
C kilogrammes of wood chips of Aquilaria sinensis wood, commonly known C
as ‘incense tree’, whilst the other contained a hoe, a knife and a sickle. The
D D
defendant said that the wood chips found in the rucksack were to be re-sold
E on Mainland China. E
F F
G
5. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and admitted under G
caution that he had come to Hong Kong illegally three days previously i.e.
H H
on 6 July, 2016, with the aim to cut down incense trees and to sell the wood
I
chips on Mainland China. Another black bag carried by the defendant was I
searched and found to contain the defendant’s mainland identity card, cash
J J
¥1,965 Renminbi, an octopus card, 2 mobile phones and a calling card.
K K
L 6. Mr. K.S. Pang of the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation L
Department examined the wood chips seized from the defendant and
M M
opined that these were ‘Chen Xiang’ as they possessed the characteristic
N N
cut surfaces reflecting the mode of harvesting the wood chips, the
O
characteristic dark resin resulting from infection in the wood and the O
occasional holes in the wood chips. Also, ten of the wood chips were with
P P
tree bark exhibiting the same characteristics and texture of that being found
Q on the tree bark of the local species of Aquilaria sinensis wood, commonly Q
known as ‘incense tree’. Mr. Pang estimated the value of the seized ‘Chen
R R
Xiang’ wood chips was around HK$200,000. Mr. Pang also opined that the
S tools seized were all suitable for harvesting ‘Chen Xiang’. In his report S
that was submitted, Mr. Pang also said that only the species Aquilaria
T T
sinensis (incense tree) is known to be able to produce ‘Chen Xiang’ and
U harvested in wood chips similar to those seized from the defendant. U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. At all material times, the 4 kilogrammes of wood chips of
C Aquilaria sinensis wood seized from the defendant were stolen in Hong C
Kong. At all material times, there was no immigration record of the
D D
defendant having entered into Hong Kong via any lawful channel
E authorized by the Director of Immigration. The defendant was neither a E
person having right of abode to remain in Hong Kong nor a person having
F F
been authorized by the Director of Immigration to remain in Hong Kong.
G G
H H
8. I was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts
I
admitted by the defendant supported the charges that he faced, and I
accordingly I convicted him of both charges.
J J
K K
Enhancement of Sentence
L L
9. Pursuant to Section 27(2)(d) of the Organized and Serious
M Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, the Prosecution applied to enhance the M
defendant’s sentence on the ground of the nature and extent of any harm,
N N
whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences
O of this specified offence of theft. Mr. Pang Kuen-shum’s report was O
submitted in support of the application. The Prosecution application to
P P
enhance sentence in respect of Charge 1 was not contested by the Defence
Q Q
and I granted the Prosecution application.
R R
S 10. Mr. Pang in his report said that ‘the trunks of many large and S
old trees of Aguilaria sinensis have been illegally felled or cut in an
T T
unsustainable fashion (i.e. cannot ensure the long-term survival of the
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
species) deliberately for mass extraction of timber to the extent that such
C trees are dead or damaged and unlikely to recover.’ His view is that ‘large C
and old individuals of Aquilaria sinensis have since become rare in Hong
D D
Kong. Getting worse is that in the recent cases relatively smaller but
E mature trees of such species were also subject to illegal harvesting. As E
Aquilaria sinensis is a dominant tree species in fung shui woods and other
F F
lowland forests, such deliberate felling and damage of large and smaller
G Aquilaria sinensis, by causing damages to the habitats of the organisms, G
have jeopardized the normal ecological relationships of the organisms in
H H
such woodlands.’ His view is that the ‘unsustainable felling of the species
I had caused irreplaceable damages to the general natural feature and I
ecology of the natural forests of Hong Kong. This in fact is also a great loss
J J
to our community’. It would also threaten the natural survival of this
K species. K
L L
M Previous convictions M
N 11. The defendant has a clear record. N
O O
Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
P P
12. The Antecedent Statement was read into the record by the
Q Q
Prosecution. No issue was taken on the contents. The Antecedent
R Statement disclosed that the defendant is now aged 33 years. He was born R
in Mainland China, and educated to Primary 5 in Mainland China and he
S S
can read and write simple Chinese. He worked as a farmer in China. He is
T healthy. He is married and lives with his wife and 3 children. T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C C
13. Mr. Chow in mitigation submitted that after finishing Primary
D
5, the defendant had worked as a farmer, and sometimes worked as a D
construction site worker to supplement his income, which ranged from
E E
¥2,000 to ¥3,000 Renminbi each month. He was the sole breadwinner of
F his family of 5, and he had aged parents as well. He could just make ends F
meet. He offended to earn some extra money. His elder daughter is due to
G G
start primary school. His second daughter should be in nursery, but
H because of the family finances, he has been unable to send her to nursery. H
The defendant was now very remorseful, as reflected by his plea. He had
I I
also immediately confessed to the police. Mitigation letters from the
J defendant, his wife, and the rural committee of his village were submitted, J
all seeking leniency for the defendant.
K K
L L
Sentence
M M
14. In sentencing, I have taken into account the background of the
N N
defendant, the mitigation put forward by Defence Counsel and the contents
O
of the mitigation letters submitted and also past authorities on sentence. I O
have in particular referred to two Court of Appeal decisions, both leading
P P
authorities on sentence for the theft of incense trees in Hong Kong, namely
Q HKSAR v. Wen Zelang, CACC 220/2006 and HKSAR v. Xie Jinbin, CACC Q
195/2010, which were also submitted by Defence Counsel. In both
R R
authorities, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and an enhancement
S of 25% was considered appropriate by the Court of Appeal. S
T T
U
15. The Court of Appeal said in Xie Jinbin, supra, U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-7-
A A
B B
“A clear and firm message is needed to deter
C mainlanders from coming to Hong Kong, legally or C
illegally, specifically for the purpose of exploiting our
D D
protected and endangered flora for profit. A starting
E point of three years for case of extraction of wood from E
an incense tree by mainlanders could not be faulted.
F F
We do emphasize that the starting point is not meant to
G be a straitjacket.” G
H In the same judgment, the Court of Appeal further said: H
I
“Weight was not determinative of sentence nor a I
reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence and
J J
the injury caused to the tree. The defendant was not to
K be punished only for the weight of the woodblock he K
had stolen but according to the enterprise he and the
L L
others had collectively participated in and the
M seriousness of the offence which was premeditated.” M
N N
O
16. In Wen Zelang, supra, the Court of Appeal said: O
“16. A clear and strong message is needed to deter
P P
Mainland people from coming to Hong Kong to cut
Q Q
endangered trees, be they Buddhist Pines or incense
R
trees. In our view, neither the three year starting point R
nor the 25% enhancement for the prevalence of the
S S
offence under OSCO is manifestly excessive.”
T T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. The illegal felling of incense trees in Hong Kong is a serious
C offence. In Wen Zelang, supra, Yeung JA said at paragraph 15: C
“In our opinion, the judge was right to have taken a
D D
serious view of the offence when the defendants have
E expressly come to Hong Kong for the purpose of cutting E
endangered trees for profit.”
F F
G G
18. In determining an appropriate starting point. I take into
H H
account the facts of the case and the weight and the value of the wood,
I
which is not insignificant. I have also considered the defendant’s pleas, I
mitigation and background. I do sympathize with the defendant’s family,
J J
which is now without its sole breadwinner. But the risk of arrest and
K imprisonment is a matter that the defendant must have considered and K
nonetheless chose to take that risk. Financial pressure is no excuse for
L L
offending. I do not find this to be effective mitigation.
M M
N N
19. I find the proper starting point for Charge 1 of theft is that of 3
O
years’ imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a O
discount of one-third from this starting point. After the discount is applied,
P P
the sentence is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment. The application for
Q enhancement was not contested. I was satisfied that the Prosecution had Q
made out its case under section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
R R
Ordinance, Cap. 455, and I enhance the sentence by 25%. The defendant is
S therefore sentenced to 2 ½ years’ (30 months) imprisonment on Charge 1. S
T T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-9-
A A
B B
20. The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for
C offences of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong to be 15 months’ C
imprisonment for a first offender on a plea of guilty unless there are
D D
humanitarian considerations to warrant departing from this guideline.
E Counsel has not submitted that there are any humanitarian considerations, E
nor do I see any on the mitigation that has been put forward. The defendant
F F
is sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2.
G G
H H
21. The defendant has admitted both charges on the indictment. I
I
have considered whether a concurrent sentence would be appropriate as the I
defendant came to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of cutting wood from
J J
incense trees. In my view these are separate and distinct offences
K warranting consecutive sentences. However, I am satisfied that a sentence K
of 3 years’ imprisonment can reflect the total culpability of the defendant
L L
in this case.
M M
N N
22. I therefore order that 9 months of the sentence on Charge 2 be
O
served concurrently with that on Charge 1, and 6 months be served O
consecutively.
P P
Q Q
23. The total sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment.
R R
S S
Bina Chainrai
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
A A
B DCCC 923/2016 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2016
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
ZHANG Guangli
H H
-----------------
I I
J J
Before : Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai in Court
K K
Date of Sentence : 8th December 2016 at 11:55 a.m.
L Present : Miss Sheroy Tam, Senior Public Prosecutor, L
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
M M
Mr. Patrick Chow Kam-leong, of Messrs. Tang,
N Wong & Chow, assigned by the Director of Legal N
Aid, for the Defendant
O O
Offences : (1) Theft
P (2) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of P
the Director of Immigration after having landed
Q Q
unlawfully in Hong Kong
R R
S
------------------------------------------- S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T T
-------------------------------------------
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleads guilty to two counts on the indictment,
C Count 1 of theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and C
Count 2 of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director
D D
of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong contrary to
E section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. E
F F
G
Facts G
2. At about 3.40 a.m. on 9 July, 2016, a party of police officers
H H
conducting an anti-illegal immigrant operation at the hillside of Tai Lam
I Wu Road, Sai Kung in Kowloon saw a campsite, consisting of a tent built I
by wooden blocks as base and covered with plastic sheets, a cooking area
J J
covered by a plastic sheet and an open area with wooden sticks set up for
K K
hanging clothes. The defendant was seen sleeping on the ground inside the
L
tent. When a police officer was about to approach, the defendant suddenly L
stood up and tried to run away. The police officer immediately declared
M M
‘police’ to the defendant and caught the defendant’s left hand. The
N defendant struggled with the police officers but was eventually pushed to N
the ground. The defendant was asked in Cantonese why he wanted to run
O O
away and the defendant answered that he had entered Hong Kong illegally
P 3 days previously from Mainland China so he was scared when he saw P
other people coming around.
Q Q
R R
3. The police officers searched the tent and found 2 rucksacks
S S
lying next to where the defendant was sitting. The defendant said that the
T
two rucksacks belonged to him, and there were ‘Chen Xiang’ wood chips T
cut by him in one, and the other contained a hoe, a knife and a sickle.
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
4. Upon checking the rucksacks, one was found to contain 4
C kilogrammes of wood chips of Aquilaria sinensis wood, commonly known C
as ‘incense tree’, whilst the other contained a hoe, a knife and a sickle. The
D D
defendant said that the wood chips found in the rucksack were to be re-sold
E on Mainland China. E
F F
G
5. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and admitted under G
caution that he had come to Hong Kong illegally three days previously i.e.
H H
on 6 July, 2016, with the aim to cut down incense trees and to sell the wood
I
chips on Mainland China. Another black bag carried by the defendant was I
searched and found to contain the defendant’s mainland identity card, cash
J J
¥1,965 Renminbi, an octopus card, 2 mobile phones and a calling card.
K K
L 6. Mr. K.S. Pang of the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation L
Department examined the wood chips seized from the defendant and
M M
opined that these were ‘Chen Xiang’ as they possessed the characteristic
N N
cut surfaces reflecting the mode of harvesting the wood chips, the
O
characteristic dark resin resulting from infection in the wood and the O
occasional holes in the wood chips. Also, ten of the wood chips were with
P P
tree bark exhibiting the same characteristics and texture of that being found
Q on the tree bark of the local species of Aquilaria sinensis wood, commonly Q
known as ‘incense tree’. Mr. Pang estimated the value of the seized ‘Chen
R R
Xiang’ wood chips was around HK$200,000. Mr. Pang also opined that the
S tools seized were all suitable for harvesting ‘Chen Xiang’. In his report S
that was submitted, Mr. Pang also said that only the species Aquilaria
T T
sinensis (incense tree) is known to be able to produce ‘Chen Xiang’ and
U harvested in wood chips similar to those seized from the defendant. U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. At all material times, the 4 kilogrammes of wood chips of
C Aquilaria sinensis wood seized from the defendant were stolen in Hong C
Kong. At all material times, there was no immigration record of the
D D
defendant having entered into Hong Kong via any lawful channel
E authorized by the Director of Immigration. The defendant was neither a E
person having right of abode to remain in Hong Kong nor a person having
F F
been authorized by the Director of Immigration to remain in Hong Kong.
G G
H H
8. I was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts
I
admitted by the defendant supported the charges that he faced, and I
accordingly I convicted him of both charges.
J J
K K
Enhancement of Sentence
L L
9. Pursuant to Section 27(2)(d) of the Organized and Serious
M Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, the Prosecution applied to enhance the M
defendant’s sentence on the ground of the nature and extent of any harm,
N N
whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences
O of this specified offence of theft. Mr. Pang Kuen-shum’s report was O
submitted in support of the application. The Prosecution application to
P P
enhance sentence in respect of Charge 1 was not contested by the Defence
Q Q
and I granted the Prosecution application.
R R
S 10. Mr. Pang in his report said that ‘the trunks of many large and S
old trees of Aguilaria sinensis have been illegally felled or cut in an
T T
unsustainable fashion (i.e. cannot ensure the long-term survival of the
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
species) deliberately for mass extraction of timber to the extent that such
C trees are dead or damaged and unlikely to recover.’ His view is that ‘large C
and old individuals of Aquilaria sinensis have since become rare in Hong
D D
Kong. Getting worse is that in the recent cases relatively smaller but
E mature trees of such species were also subject to illegal harvesting. As E
Aquilaria sinensis is a dominant tree species in fung shui woods and other
F F
lowland forests, such deliberate felling and damage of large and smaller
G Aquilaria sinensis, by causing damages to the habitats of the organisms, G
have jeopardized the normal ecological relationships of the organisms in
H H
such woodlands.’ His view is that the ‘unsustainable felling of the species
I had caused irreplaceable damages to the general natural feature and I
ecology of the natural forests of Hong Kong. This in fact is also a great loss
J J
to our community’. It would also threaten the natural survival of this
K species. K
L L
M Previous convictions M
N 11. The defendant has a clear record. N
O O
Antecedent Statement and Mitigation
P P
12. The Antecedent Statement was read into the record by the
Q Q
Prosecution. No issue was taken on the contents. The Antecedent
R Statement disclosed that the defendant is now aged 33 years. He was born R
in Mainland China, and educated to Primary 5 in Mainland China and he
S S
can read and write simple Chinese. He worked as a farmer in China. He is
T healthy. He is married and lives with his wife and 3 children. T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C C
13. Mr. Chow in mitigation submitted that after finishing Primary
D
5, the defendant had worked as a farmer, and sometimes worked as a D
construction site worker to supplement his income, which ranged from
E E
¥2,000 to ¥3,000 Renminbi each month. He was the sole breadwinner of
F his family of 5, and he had aged parents as well. He could just make ends F
meet. He offended to earn some extra money. His elder daughter is due to
G G
start primary school. His second daughter should be in nursery, but
H because of the family finances, he has been unable to send her to nursery. H
The defendant was now very remorseful, as reflected by his plea. He had
I I
also immediately confessed to the police. Mitigation letters from the
J defendant, his wife, and the rural committee of his village were submitted, J
all seeking leniency for the defendant.
K K
L L
Sentence
M M
14. In sentencing, I have taken into account the background of the
N N
defendant, the mitigation put forward by Defence Counsel and the contents
O
of the mitigation letters submitted and also past authorities on sentence. I O
have in particular referred to two Court of Appeal decisions, both leading
P P
authorities on sentence for the theft of incense trees in Hong Kong, namely
Q HKSAR v. Wen Zelang, CACC 220/2006 and HKSAR v. Xie Jinbin, CACC Q
195/2010, which were also submitted by Defence Counsel. In both
R R
authorities, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and an enhancement
S of 25% was considered appropriate by the Court of Appeal. S
T T
U
15. The Court of Appeal said in Xie Jinbin, supra, U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-7-
A A
B B
“A clear and firm message is needed to deter
C mainlanders from coming to Hong Kong, legally or C
illegally, specifically for the purpose of exploiting our
D D
protected and endangered flora for profit. A starting
E point of three years for case of extraction of wood from E
an incense tree by mainlanders could not be faulted.
F F
We do emphasize that the starting point is not meant to
G be a straitjacket.” G
H In the same judgment, the Court of Appeal further said: H
I
“Weight was not determinative of sentence nor a I
reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence and
J J
the injury caused to the tree. The defendant was not to
K be punished only for the weight of the woodblock he K
had stolen but according to the enterprise he and the
L L
others had collectively participated in and the
M seriousness of the offence which was premeditated.” M
N N
O
16. In Wen Zelang, supra, the Court of Appeal said: O
“16. A clear and strong message is needed to deter
P P
Mainland people from coming to Hong Kong to cut
Q Q
endangered trees, be they Buddhist Pines or incense
R
trees. In our view, neither the three year starting point R
nor the 25% enhancement for the prevalence of the
S S
offence under OSCO is manifestly excessive.”
T T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. The illegal felling of incense trees in Hong Kong is a serious
C offence. In Wen Zelang, supra, Yeung JA said at paragraph 15: C
“In our opinion, the judge was right to have taken a
D D
serious view of the offence when the defendants have
E expressly come to Hong Kong for the purpose of cutting E
endangered trees for profit.”
F F
G G
18. In determining an appropriate starting point. I take into
H H
account the facts of the case and the weight and the value of the wood,
I
which is not insignificant. I have also considered the defendant’s pleas, I
mitigation and background. I do sympathize with the defendant’s family,
J J
which is now without its sole breadwinner. But the risk of arrest and
K imprisonment is a matter that the defendant must have considered and K
nonetheless chose to take that risk. Financial pressure is no excuse for
L L
offending. I do not find this to be effective mitigation.
M M
N N
19. I find the proper starting point for Charge 1 of theft is that of 3
O
years’ imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a O
discount of one-third from this starting point. After the discount is applied,
P P
the sentence is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment. The application for
Q enhancement was not contested. I was satisfied that the Prosecution had Q
made out its case under section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes
R R
Ordinance, Cap. 455, and I enhance the sentence by 25%. The defendant is
S therefore sentenced to 2 ½ years’ (30 months) imprisonment on Charge 1. S
T T
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V
-9-
A A
B B
20. The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for
C offences of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong to be 15 months’ C
imprisonment for a first offender on a plea of guilty unless there are
D D
humanitarian considerations to warrant departing from this guideline.
E Counsel has not submitted that there are any humanitarian considerations, E
nor do I see any on the mitigation that has been put forward. The defendant
F F
is sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2.
G G
H H
21. The defendant has admitted both charges on the indictment. I
I
have considered whether a concurrent sentence would be appropriate as the I
defendant came to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of cutting wood from
J J
incense trees. In my view these are separate and distinct offences
K warranting consecutive sentences. However, I am satisfied that a sentence K
of 3 years’ imprisonment can reflect the total culpability of the defendant
L L
in this case.
M M
N N
22. I therefore order that 9 months of the sentence on Charge 2 be
O
served concurrently with that on Charge 1, and 6 months be served O
consecutively.
P P
Q Q
23. The total sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment.
R R
S S
Bina Chainrai
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
CRT20/8.12.2016/ DCCC 923/2016/Sentence
V V