A A
B B
C DCCC 328/2017 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 328 OF 2017
F F
G ------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I BALJIT SINGH I
--------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 10 November 2017
L L
Present: Mr Peter Julian Cahill, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR/Director
M of Public Prosecution M
Mrs Mahinder M Panesar, instructed by Mohnani &
N N
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: [1] Conspiracy to make false instruments (串謀製造虛假文
P P
書)
Q Q
[2] Taking employment while being a person who remained
R in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of R
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong
S S
unlawfully (身為在香港非法入境後但未得入境事務處
T 處長授權而留在香港的人接受僱傭工作) T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C ----------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
-----------------------------------------
E E
1. The defendant entered pleas of guilty to one charge of
F F
conspiracy to make false instruments (Charge 1) and one charge of taking
G employment while being a person who remained in Hong Kong without G
the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed in Hong
H H
Kong (Charge 2).
I I
THE FACTS
J J
K 2. On 30 November 2015, the defendant surrendered to the K
Immigration Department for illegal remaining in Hong Kong and was
L L
released on Immigration recognizance. The defendant was prohibited from
M taking up any employment, whether paid or unpaid. M
N N
3. On 6 December 2016, the defendant was intercepted by
O Immigration Assistant in a restaurant namely “Matsuzaka Japanese O
Restaurant” located at Flat 23-28, UG/F, South Seas Centre, 75 Mody
P P
Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (the “Restaurant”) while he
Q was observed to have cleaned up tables and served dishes and drinks to the Q
decoy officers (Charge 2). A mobile phone (the “Phone”) was seized from
R R
the defendant.
S S
4. Forensic examination was conducted on the Phone and
T T
images of suspected forged Hong Kong identity cards were retrieved from
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
the Phone. Among the images, the Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards
C numbered “p802445(2)”, “P054724(0)”, “P941398(0)”, “R704258(1)”, C
“P542235(7)” and “B247883(6)” were confirmed to be forged accordingly
D D
to the record of the Immigration Department.
E E
5. Under caution, the defendant confirmed that: -
F F
a) The data in the Phone belonged to the defendant. It was seized
G G
on the 6 December 2016;
H H
b) The images of Hong Kong identity cards shown to the defendant
I I
were extracted from the Phone and the said Hong Kong identity
J cards were forged; J
K K
c) On 1 October 2016, a person known as “GULNAZ AKHTAR”
L also known as RANI (“A1”) met the defendant in a park in Tsim L
Sha Tsui East and explained to the defendant the process of
M M
getting forged identity cards made and the defendant’s role;
N N
d) The defendant’s role was to receive by phone from A1 the
O photographs and personal particulars of the claimants who were O
willing to make forged Hong Kong identity cards and then pass
P P
the information to “GURSHARN SINGH” also known as or
Q PANNU (“A2”) by WhatsApp messaging application; Q
R R
e) A2 would hand these details over to “DARSHAN SINGH”
S (“A3”) to make forged Hong Kong identity cards; S
T f) A3 would process the forged identity cards in Mainland China; T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
g) Once the forged identity cards were ready, A2 would call the
C defendant to collect the cards which were sealed in the cover of C
a notebook;
D D
h) The defendant would then give the notebook (with the forged
E E
identity cards) to A1 and A1 would sell the forged identity cards
F to non-refoulement claimants for job seeking in Hong Kong for F
around HK$4,500 per card;
G G
H
i) The defendant had arranged for forged identity cards for A1 H
around 4 times from October 2016 to November 2016;
I I
j) As instructed, the defendant sent the photos and personal
J J
particulars to A3 and then collected the forged identity card from
K A2; K
L k) A2 gave the defendant a sealed notebook and the defendant knew L
from A1 that the forged identity cards were sealed in the
M M
notebook;
N N
l) The defendant later handed over the notebook to A1;
O O
P m) The defendant knew that the personal particulars on the forged P
identity cards were wrong but the photos always belonged to the
Q Q
buyers of the forged identity cards;
R R
n) In return for arranging forged identity cards, A1 allowed the
S defendant to continue with his job in the Restaurant to earn S
around HK$1,500 per month;
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
o) He entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 November 2015 and had
C been living in Hong Kong as a non-refoulement claimant; C
D p) He worked as a waiter at the Restaurant on 6 December 2016; D
E q) He knew that he was not allowed to work in Hong Kong but he E
had started working at the Restaurant since around July 2016.
F F
G G
6. The defendant, between October 2016 and November 2016,
H
in Hong Kong or elsewhere, conspired with A1, A2 and A3 to make false H
instruments, namely, false Hong Kong Identity Cards, with the intention
I I
that others would use them to induce somebody to accept them as genuine,
J and by reason of so accepting them to do or not to do some act to his own J
or any other person’s prejudice.
K K
L 7. The defendant, on 6 December 2016, in Hong Kong, while L
being a person who, having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully, remained in
M M
Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration under
N section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, took employment, N
whether paid or unpaid, as an odd job worker at Tsim Sha Tsui.
O O
PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION
P P
Q 8. The defendant has a clear record. He is 25 years old. He lived Q
with his parents and younger brother in India. In November 2015, he came
R R
to Hong Kong through a middle man called Parminder by paying him a
S large sum of money. As a result, his family ran into heavy debt. They now S
rely on their neighbours and temple to provide them with food. Due to the
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
present incident, the parents are now bedridden. His mother needed surgery
C on her lung and gallbladder. C
D D
9. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, Rani (A1) introduced the
E defendant to take up employment in the Restaurant in order to repay the E
debt owed to Parminder. However, the defendant was being exploited. The
F F
salary was paid by the employer to A1 and she paid the defendant $1,500
G per month. His passport was kept by the people of Parminder. The G
defendant was told by Rani (A1) to collect the false Hong Kong ID cards
H H
for her, otherwise the defendant could not keep up his employment in the
I Restaurant. I
J J
10. Miss Panesar, counsel for the defendant, submitted that under
K such circumstances, the defendant had been put under duress. In order to K
repay the borrowed sum to Parminder, the defendant had to assist A1 in the
L L
false ID operation in order to keep the employment.
M M
N 11. Miss Panesar further submitted that the defendant acted as a N
foot soldier for the false ID card operation. His role was on the low scale
O O
of criminality. The defendant has expressed he is willing to assist the
P authority by fully disclose the roles played by other co-conspirators. P
Q Q
12. Lastly, Miss Panesar urged that court to pass a concurrent
R sentence on both charges as the defendant committed Charge 1 so as to R
keep his employment in the Restaurant. He did not receive any monetary
S S
reward for what he had done for Charge 1. Miss Panesar submitted that
T both charges were interlinked. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS C
D D
13. Adjournment had been made to see whether the assistance
E offered by the defendant by way of a non-prejudicial statement would yield E
anything which might be to his advantage. I am told that the defendant has
F F
given one non-prejudicial statement which had led to the arrest of A1 and
G Parminder. G
H H
14. After discussion with the parties whether to defer the sentence
I until the defendant has had the opportunity to live up to his promise, or to I
sentence now and leave the matter being addressed by the Court of Appeal
J J
once the defendant complied with his promise: R v Wong Kam Chiu [1993]
K 2 HKC 700 at 704. The parties are of the view that the latter course should K
be taken as the conclusion of the trial of other co-conspirators are far away.
L L
M M
15. At this present stage, it is not known if the defendant would
N fulfill the offer made by him at this sentencing hearing. Therefore, no N
discount will be given to the defendant for a mere promise to assist.
O O
However, he can appeal seeking a reduction of his sentence for the
P assistance he renders to the prosecution leading to the conviction of other P
culprits: HKSAR v Chan Po Yu CACC134/2016.
Q Q
R Charge 1: Conspiracy to make false instruments R
S S
16. There is no sentencing guideline for Charge 1. Each case has
T to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of
C the present case, including its nature and facts, personal background of the C
defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.
D D
E 18. The commission of Charge 1 has a serious detrimental effect E
on the community and tarnishes Hong Kong’s reputation for order and
F F
security. The making of false Hong Kong ID cards will no doubts cause
G damage to the integrity of the Hong Kong ID card system. The customers G
of these false ID cards are likely used them for the purpose of concealing
H H
their true identity so that they can work illegally in Hong Kong. It would
I directly impact local workers by depriving them of job opportunities and I
bringing down their wages, as a result of which the livelihood of Hong
J J
Kong people as well as the economic structure and social order of Hong
K Kong would be adversely affected. In my view, sufficiently deterrent K
sentences must be imposed for the offence of making of false ID cards.
L L
M 19. Apart from the above factors, for Charge 1, there is evidence M
of a syndicate. I accept that the setup was not sophisticated. There is no
N N
international element in the present case. I also accept that the defendant
O was less culpable than other co-conspirators, A1 and A3. He played a role O
of being a courier in the operation. However, without the assistance of
P P
people like the defendant, those who committed the offence of making
Q false ID cards would have difficulty in disposing them. The defendant Q
should have stopped and realized that he was being manipulated by A1.
R R
Unfortunately, he chose not to. He carried on to be the foot soldier of A1
S in the conspiracies to make false instruments. What the defendant did was S
seriously wrong. I accept that it is the result of his weak character.
T T
However, I find what the defendant had done warrants a prison sentence.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 20. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that a starting point C
of 3.5 years’ imprisonment (42 months) is appropriate for Charge 1
D D
committed by the defendant.
E E
21. The defendant was a torture claimant, pending the
F F
determination of his torture claim, he was permitted to remain in Hong
G Kong and was at liberty under a recognizance issued by the Director of G
Immigration. The offence committed by the defendant have a serious
H H
detrimental effect on Hong Kong’s reputation. I adopt to enhance the
I starting point by 3 months to 45 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1: see I
J
HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & anor [2014] 1 HKC 206. J
K K
22. Miss Panesar mitigated that the defendant was acting under
L
duress. He was threatened of not being employed if he did not assist in L
Charge 1. He received no monetary gain for committing this charge.
M M
23. Regrettably, it was held that duress is no mitigation for the
N N
accused who committed the offence in order to keep his job: HKSAR v
O Cheung Chun CACC 539/1998. However, in view of the defendant’s weak O
character and subjected to undue influence by Parminder, I still reduce his
P P
sentence by 3 months. His sentence is so brought down to 42 months’
Q imprisonment. Q
R R
24. I have considered HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam CACC 418/2014,
S the revised discount of sentence for pleas of guilty should apply in this case. S
I would adopt 25% discount on the defendant tendered up his plea on
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 1 on the first day of trial. Therefore, the sentence is reduced from
C 42 months to 31 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment upon his plea. C
D D
Charge 2: Taking employment without authority
E E
25. For Charge 2, it was a timely plea. The defendant indicated
F F
his guilty plea on the plea day. I had considered all the mitigating factors
G and found no strong humanitarian considerations to depart from the G
guidelines in HKSAR v Usman Butt & Another, HCMA70/2010. The tariff
H H
is 15 months’ imprisonment upon a plea of guilty. The defendant is so
I sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
TOTALITY
K K
L
26. The nature of the offence in Charge 2 is completely different L
to that in Charge 1, the terms should be ordered to run consecutively.
M M
However, I accept that the defendant is being exploited by A1 and
N Parminder. The two charges are part and parcel to each other. Therefore, N
I order that both the charges to be run concurrently. The total term is 31
O O
months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
(Amy Chan)
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
C DCCC 328/2017 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 328 OF 2017
F F
G ------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I BALJIT SINGH I
--------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Amy Chan K
Date: 10 November 2017
L L
Present: Mr Peter Julian Cahill, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR/Director
M of Public Prosecution M
Mrs Mahinder M Panesar, instructed by Mohnani &
N N
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: [1] Conspiracy to make false instruments (串謀製造虛假文
P P
書)
Q Q
[2] Taking employment while being a person who remained
R in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of R
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong
S S
unlawfully (身為在香港非法入境後但未得入境事務處
T 處長授權而留在香港的人接受僱傭工作) T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C ----------------------------------------- C
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
D D
-----------------------------------------
E E
1. The defendant entered pleas of guilty to one charge of
F F
conspiracy to make false instruments (Charge 1) and one charge of taking
G employment while being a person who remained in Hong Kong without G
the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed in Hong
H H
Kong (Charge 2).
I I
THE FACTS
J J
K 2. On 30 November 2015, the defendant surrendered to the K
Immigration Department for illegal remaining in Hong Kong and was
L L
released on Immigration recognizance. The defendant was prohibited from
M taking up any employment, whether paid or unpaid. M
N N
3. On 6 December 2016, the defendant was intercepted by
O Immigration Assistant in a restaurant namely “Matsuzaka Japanese O
Restaurant” located at Flat 23-28, UG/F, South Seas Centre, 75 Mody
P P
Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (the “Restaurant”) while he
Q was observed to have cleaned up tables and served dishes and drinks to the Q
decoy officers (Charge 2). A mobile phone (the “Phone”) was seized from
R R
the defendant.
S S
4. Forensic examination was conducted on the Phone and
T T
images of suspected forged Hong Kong identity cards were retrieved from
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
the Phone. Among the images, the Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards
C numbered “p802445(2)”, “P054724(0)”, “P941398(0)”, “R704258(1)”, C
“P542235(7)” and “B247883(6)” were confirmed to be forged accordingly
D D
to the record of the Immigration Department.
E E
5. Under caution, the defendant confirmed that: -
F F
a) The data in the Phone belonged to the defendant. It was seized
G G
on the 6 December 2016;
H H
b) The images of Hong Kong identity cards shown to the defendant
I I
were extracted from the Phone and the said Hong Kong identity
J cards were forged; J
K K
c) On 1 October 2016, a person known as “GULNAZ AKHTAR”
L also known as RANI (“A1”) met the defendant in a park in Tsim L
Sha Tsui East and explained to the defendant the process of
M M
getting forged identity cards made and the defendant’s role;
N N
d) The defendant’s role was to receive by phone from A1 the
O photographs and personal particulars of the claimants who were O
willing to make forged Hong Kong identity cards and then pass
P P
the information to “GURSHARN SINGH” also known as or
Q PANNU (“A2”) by WhatsApp messaging application; Q
R R
e) A2 would hand these details over to “DARSHAN SINGH”
S (“A3”) to make forged Hong Kong identity cards; S
T f) A3 would process the forged identity cards in Mainland China; T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
g) Once the forged identity cards were ready, A2 would call the
C defendant to collect the cards which were sealed in the cover of C
a notebook;
D D
h) The defendant would then give the notebook (with the forged
E E
identity cards) to A1 and A1 would sell the forged identity cards
F to non-refoulement claimants for job seeking in Hong Kong for F
around HK$4,500 per card;
G G
H
i) The defendant had arranged for forged identity cards for A1 H
around 4 times from October 2016 to November 2016;
I I
j) As instructed, the defendant sent the photos and personal
J J
particulars to A3 and then collected the forged identity card from
K A2; K
L k) A2 gave the defendant a sealed notebook and the defendant knew L
from A1 that the forged identity cards were sealed in the
M M
notebook;
N N
l) The defendant later handed over the notebook to A1;
O O
P m) The defendant knew that the personal particulars on the forged P
identity cards were wrong but the photos always belonged to the
Q Q
buyers of the forged identity cards;
R R
n) In return for arranging forged identity cards, A1 allowed the
S defendant to continue with his job in the Restaurant to earn S
around HK$1,500 per month;
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
o) He entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 November 2015 and had
C been living in Hong Kong as a non-refoulement claimant; C
D p) He worked as a waiter at the Restaurant on 6 December 2016; D
E q) He knew that he was not allowed to work in Hong Kong but he E
had started working at the Restaurant since around July 2016.
F F
G G
6. The defendant, between October 2016 and November 2016,
H
in Hong Kong or elsewhere, conspired with A1, A2 and A3 to make false H
instruments, namely, false Hong Kong Identity Cards, with the intention
I I
that others would use them to induce somebody to accept them as genuine,
J and by reason of so accepting them to do or not to do some act to his own J
or any other person’s prejudice.
K K
L 7. The defendant, on 6 December 2016, in Hong Kong, while L
being a person who, having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully, remained in
M M
Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration under
N section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, took employment, N
whether paid or unpaid, as an odd job worker at Tsim Sha Tsui.
O O
PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION
P P
Q 8. The defendant has a clear record. He is 25 years old. He lived Q
with his parents and younger brother in India. In November 2015, he came
R R
to Hong Kong through a middle man called Parminder by paying him a
S large sum of money. As a result, his family ran into heavy debt. They now S
rely on their neighbours and temple to provide them with food. Due to the
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
present incident, the parents are now bedridden. His mother needed surgery
C on her lung and gallbladder. C
D D
9. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, Rani (A1) introduced the
E defendant to take up employment in the Restaurant in order to repay the E
debt owed to Parminder. However, the defendant was being exploited. The
F F
salary was paid by the employer to A1 and she paid the defendant $1,500
G per month. His passport was kept by the people of Parminder. The G
defendant was told by Rani (A1) to collect the false Hong Kong ID cards
H H
for her, otherwise the defendant could not keep up his employment in the
I Restaurant. I
J J
10. Miss Panesar, counsel for the defendant, submitted that under
K such circumstances, the defendant had been put under duress. In order to K
repay the borrowed sum to Parminder, the defendant had to assist A1 in the
L L
false ID operation in order to keep the employment.
M M
N 11. Miss Panesar further submitted that the defendant acted as a N
foot soldier for the false ID card operation. His role was on the low scale
O O
of criminality. The defendant has expressed he is willing to assist the
P authority by fully disclose the roles played by other co-conspirators. P
Q Q
12. Lastly, Miss Panesar urged that court to pass a concurrent
R sentence on both charges as the defendant committed Charge 1 so as to R
keep his employment in the Restaurant. He did not receive any monetary
S S
reward for what he had done for Charge 1. Miss Panesar submitted that
T both charges were interlinked. T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS C
D D
13. Adjournment had been made to see whether the assistance
E offered by the defendant by way of a non-prejudicial statement would yield E
anything which might be to his advantage. I am told that the defendant has
F F
given one non-prejudicial statement which had led to the arrest of A1 and
G Parminder. G
H H
14. After discussion with the parties whether to defer the sentence
I until the defendant has had the opportunity to live up to his promise, or to I
sentence now and leave the matter being addressed by the Court of Appeal
J J
once the defendant complied with his promise: R v Wong Kam Chiu [1993]
K 2 HKC 700 at 704. The parties are of the view that the latter course should K
be taken as the conclusion of the trial of other co-conspirators are far away.
L L
M M
15. At this present stage, it is not known if the defendant would
N fulfill the offer made by him at this sentencing hearing. Therefore, no N
discount will be given to the defendant for a mere promise to assist.
O O
However, he can appeal seeking a reduction of his sentence for the
P assistance he renders to the prosecution leading to the conviction of other P
culprits: HKSAR v Chan Po Yu CACC134/2016.
Q Q
R Charge 1: Conspiracy to make false instruments R
S S
16. There is no sentencing guideline for Charge 1. Each case has
T to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of
C the present case, including its nature and facts, personal background of the C
defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.
D D
E 18. The commission of Charge 1 has a serious detrimental effect E
on the community and tarnishes Hong Kong’s reputation for order and
F F
security. The making of false Hong Kong ID cards will no doubts cause
G damage to the integrity of the Hong Kong ID card system. The customers G
of these false ID cards are likely used them for the purpose of concealing
H H
their true identity so that they can work illegally in Hong Kong. It would
I directly impact local workers by depriving them of job opportunities and I
bringing down their wages, as a result of which the livelihood of Hong
J J
Kong people as well as the economic structure and social order of Hong
K Kong would be adversely affected. In my view, sufficiently deterrent K
sentences must be imposed for the offence of making of false ID cards.
L L
M 19. Apart from the above factors, for Charge 1, there is evidence M
of a syndicate. I accept that the setup was not sophisticated. There is no
N N
international element in the present case. I also accept that the defendant
O was less culpable than other co-conspirators, A1 and A3. He played a role O
of being a courier in the operation. However, without the assistance of
P P
people like the defendant, those who committed the offence of making
Q false ID cards would have difficulty in disposing them. The defendant Q
should have stopped and realized that he was being manipulated by A1.
R R
Unfortunately, he chose not to. He carried on to be the foot soldier of A1
S in the conspiracies to make false instruments. What the defendant did was S
seriously wrong. I accept that it is the result of his weak character.
T T
However, I find what the defendant had done warrants a prison sentence.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 20. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that a starting point C
of 3.5 years’ imprisonment (42 months) is appropriate for Charge 1
D D
committed by the defendant.
E E
21. The defendant was a torture claimant, pending the
F F
determination of his torture claim, he was permitted to remain in Hong
G Kong and was at liberty under a recognizance issued by the Director of G
Immigration. The offence committed by the defendant have a serious
H H
detrimental effect on Hong Kong’s reputation. I adopt to enhance the
I starting point by 3 months to 45 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1: see I
J
HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & anor [2014] 1 HKC 206. J
K K
22. Miss Panesar mitigated that the defendant was acting under
L
duress. He was threatened of not being employed if he did not assist in L
Charge 1. He received no monetary gain for committing this charge.
M M
23. Regrettably, it was held that duress is no mitigation for the
N N
accused who committed the offence in order to keep his job: HKSAR v
O Cheung Chun CACC 539/1998. However, in view of the defendant’s weak O
character and subjected to undue influence by Parminder, I still reduce his
P P
sentence by 3 months. His sentence is so brought down to 42 months’
Q imprisonment. Q
R R
24. I have considered HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam CACC 418/2014,
S the revised discount of sentence for pleas of guilty should apply in this case. S
I would adopt 25% discount on the defendant tendered up his plea on
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 1 on the first day of trial. Therefore, the sentence is reduced from
C 42 months to 31 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment upon his plea. C
D D
Charge 2: Taking employment without authority
E E
25. For Charge 2, it was a timely plea. The defendant indicated
F F
his guilty plea on the plea day. I had considered all the mitigating factors
G and found no strong humanitarian considerations to depart from the G
guidelines in HKSAR v Usman Butt & Another, HCMA70/2010. The tariff
H H
is 15 months’ imprisonment upon a plea of guilty. The defendant is so
I sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. I
J J
TOTALITY
K K
L
26. The nature of the offence in Charge 2 is completely different L
to that in Charge 1, the terms should be ordered to run consecutively.
M M
However, I accept that the defendant is being exploited by A1 and
N Parminder. The two charges are part and parcel to each other. Therefore, N
I order that both the charges to be run concurrently. The total term is 31
O O
months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
(Amy Chan)
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V