A A
B B
DCCC 425/2021
[2022] HKDC 224
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 425 OF 2021
E ____________ E
HKSAR
F v F
LEE KIN YIP
G G
____________
H H
Before: HH Judge Dufton
I Date: 4 March 2022 I
Present: Ms Judy Ma, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
J Mr James Tze, instructed by S.H. Chan & Co, J
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the defendant
K
Offences: (1) Theft (盜竊罪) K
(2) Possession of offensive weapon in a public place
L
(在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器) L
M REASONS FOR SENTENCE M
N 1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft of a vehicle, N
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance1 and one charge of possession
O O
of an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a dagger, contrary to
P section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance2. P
Q Q
2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the summary of
R facts dated 4 March 2022 admitted by the defendant today3. R
S S
1
Cap 210.
T 2
T
Cap 245.
3
The summary of facts was amended in court.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
3. In summary on 19 March 2018 Mr Wong lent his Lexus car
C registration mark KL 1214 to Mr Chan. Around 1430 hours on 27 March C
2018 Mr Chan parked KL 1214 at an outdoor carpark at 30 Luen Wan
D D
Street in Mongkok. The rules of the carpark required Mr Chan to leave the
E car key with the security guard on duty. E
F 4. At around 0230 hours on 28 March 2018, an unknown male F
approached Mr Chu, the security guard on duty, claiming to be Mr Chan’s
G G
friend and saying he needed to get the parking ticket from the car. Mr Chu
H therefore gave him the car key of KL 1214. The car was then driven away H
from the carpark.
I I
J 5. CCTV of the carpark showed the unknown male approach Mr J
Chu; Mr Chu giving the key to the unknown male and the unknown male
K K
leaving the carpark and returning one minute later with another male who
L drove the car away4. L
M M
6. At 1827 hours on 29 March 2018 uniform police spotted the
N car outside Nos. 279-281 Reclamation Street in Mongkok at which time N
the car was bearing licence plate KL 779.
O O
7. Inside the car the police found the dagger, which was a 36 cm
P P
long knife, on the floor of the rear left passenger seat. A cover for the knife
Q and a pair of licence plates UA 1678 were found on the floor of the front Q
passenger seat5.
R R
S 4
The prosecution case is that the defendant was not the unknown male who approached Mr Chu or S
the unknown male who drove the car away. The prosecution case is one of joint enterprise based
T on the defendant’s admission that when he walked past the carpark he noticed the car and decided T
to take the car away for fun and asked a person called Lau to help him steal the car.
5
Ms Ma informed the court the search of the car took place at 2050 hours.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. The defendant’s fingerprint was later found on the licence
C plate UA 1678. C
D 9. CCTV footage of 279 Reclamation Street shows three persons D
alighting from the car at 1749 hours on 29 March 2018.
E E
F Arrest F
G 10. The defendant was arrested on 4 April 2018. In a video G
recorded interview, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that when he walked
H H
past the carpark he noticed the car and decided to take the car away for fun;
I he told a person called Lau to help him by approaching the security guard I
and telling the security guard he had lost the parking ticket; Lau handed
J J
over the car to him in the early hours of 28 March 2018; on 29 March 2018
K K
when driving the car he saw his friends and drove them to Reclamation
L
Street where they stopped to go to a convenience store; when he saw L
uniformed police near the car he did not return to the car; he bought the
M M
knife with cover some time ago for collection purposes but forgot when
N and where and that he bought the licence plates KL779 and UA 1678. N
O Mitigation O
P P
11. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and
Q written submissions of Mr Tze, including that the defendant who is 47, Q
divorced and lives with his parents, is now serving sentence6.
R R
12. I have read the defendant’s mitigation letter in which he says
S S
he has reflected on his past and feels deeply regretful. The defendant asks
T T
6
See §§1-3 of the skeleton mitigation submission.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
for a lenient sentence so that he may take care of his family. Mr Tze
C informs the court the family having contracted Covid-19 are unable to C
attend court today to support the defendant and ask for a lenient sentence.
D D
Charge 1 - theft of vehicle
E E
F 13. There are no guidelines for offences of theft of vehicles, each F
case depending on its own facts. Deterrent sentences are nevertheless
G G
required. As was said in HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming7:
H H
“Cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars are
I very serious offences and inevitably call for immediate custodial I
sentences of considerable length. This is absolutely necessary to
J act as a deterrent to a prevalent crime.” J
K K
14. In Cheng Chun Ming the Court of Appeal upheld a starting
L point of 3 years’ imprisonment for the handling of one stolen vehicle, L
described as casual and opportunistic8.
M M
N
15. Mr Tze refers the court to my reasons for sentence in HKSAR N
9
v Ngai Ming Yin and the cases referred to therein . In Ngai Ming Yin I took
O
a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for theft of a motor O
P
cycle, valued at $51,900, where the ignition had been altered and a false P
number plate placed on the motorcycle and 2 years and 3 months’
Q Q
imprisonment for theft of motorcycles valued at $61,000 and $68,000.
R R
7
CACC 356/2000.
S S
8
Also see HKSAR v Muhammad Waqas [2019] 4 HKLRD 323; HKSAR v Yu Chi Chiu [2017] 1
HKLRD 400; HKSAR v Kan Tak Man CACC 122/2016.
T T
9
DCCC 226/2021; [2021] HKDC 1031.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
16. The Lexus car was first registered in 2009 in the value of
C $310,400. The parties have agreed that the estimated market value of the C
10
car in 2018 was around $40,000 .
D D
17. Taking into account that the Lexus car is valued at around
E E
$40,000; the circumstances of the theft and that the licence plate was
F changed, no doubt to avoid detection, I am satisfied the proper starting F
point after trial is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H Charge 2 – possession of an offensive weapon in a public place H
I 18. Mr Tze submits the dagger was bought as a collectible item11. I
As indicated in court, taking into account that the dagger was found in the
J J
car and not at the home of the defendant and can in no way be described as
K K
ornamental, I do not accept this explanation. Having taken instructions
L
from the defendant, Mr Tze informs the court the defendant does not wish L
to give evidence as to why he possessed the dagger.
M M
19. Section 33(2)(d) of the Ordinance provides that a person
N N
convicted of an offence who is of the age of 25 years or more shall be
O sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 3 years. There are no O
guideline sentences, the length of sentence depending on the facts of each
P P
case.
Q Q
20. Mr Tze refers the court to HKSAR v Chan Ming Lok where on
R R
appeal against a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment the court held a
S sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment after trial was appropriate for S
T 10
T
See amended §1 of the summary of facts.
11
See §9 of the skeleton mitigation submission.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
possession of a relatively small domestic knife where the court could not
C exclude the possibility the knife was a weapon of defence and by reason of C
12
the fact the defendant had never before been sentenced to imprisonment .
D D
21. Photographs of the dagger have been submitted to court.
E E
Clearly the dagger is not a relatively small domestic knife. A dagger is
F capable of causing very serious harm. The carrying of such a dagger in a F
public place is a serious offence. I am satisfied the proper starting point
G G
after trial is 12 months’ imprisonment.
H H
Persistent offender
I I
22. A starting point may be increased where the defendant is a
J J
persistent offender. The defendant has appeared in court on nineteen
K K
occasions since 1991 amassing a total of thirty-one convictions. Twenty
L
convictions were prior to the arrest of the defendant for the present offences, L
including twelve convictions for offences of dishonesty, including theft
M M
from vehicle but not theft of vehicle and three convictions for possession
N of offensive weapons and prohibited weapons13. N
O 23. I am satisfied the defendant is a persistent offender and O
enhance the starting points by 3 months to 2 years and 9 months’
P P
imprisonment and 15 months’ imprisonment respectively.
Q Q
R R
S S
12
T [2009] 6 HKC 7. T
13
Since his arrest the defendant has again been convicted of theft from vehicle in 2019, burglary in
2021 and possession of offensive weapons in 2019 and 2021.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces
C the sentence for theft to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment and for C
possession of offensive weapon to 10 months’ imprisonment.
D D
Totality
E E
F 25. I am satisfied possession of the dagger adds to the culpability F
of the defendant. Consecutive sentences are appropriate.
G G
26. Mr Tze asks the court to take into account that apart from the
H H
fingerprint found on the licence plate UA 1678, the only evidence against
I the defendant was his confession. In asking for a discount in sentence Mr I
Tze refers the court to HKSAR v Tsang Kai On where the court gave a
J J
discount of 4 months’ imprisonment . 14
K K
27. This discount was disapproved of in HKSAR v Ma Ming where
L L
the Court of Appeal held that the fact that a frank confession provides the
M only evidence which supports the charge did not entitle the defendant to a M
further discount over and above the one-third discount15.
N N
O 28. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam16 reaffirmed O
the position that a judge was not obliged to give a discount over and above
P P
the one-third discount explaining that the mitigating factor of a confession
Q was subsumed within the one-third discount. Q
R R
S S
14
CACC 79/2010.
T 15
T
[2013] 1 HKLRD 813 at §32.
16
[2016] 5 HKLRD 1 at §41.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
29. The court in HKSAR v Ma Ming did however say that when
C considering the totality of the sentence a court, in exercising its discretion, C
can take into account the fact that the frank confession of a defendant
D D
provides the only evidence to support the charge.
E E
30. Taking into account the defendant’s confession, I am satisfied
F a total sentence of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment properly reflects F
the defendant’s criminality on the two charges and takes into account the
G G
defendant’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences . 17
H H
31. The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
I I
Charge 1 – 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment;
J J
K Charge 2 – 10 months’ imprisonment with 5 months K
consecutive and 5 months concurrent to charge 1.
L L
M
32. The total sentence is 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. M
N 33. The defendant is currently serving a total sentence of 4 years, N
3 months and 42 days’ imprisonment18. On 6 January 2021 the defendant
O O
was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for burglary and 3 months’
P imprisonment consecutive for failing to surrender to court. P
Q Q
34. The burglary was committed on 24 June 2018 and was
R therefore committed while on bail for the present offences. I note the R
sentencing judge enhanced the sentence by reason of the defendant being
S S
17
T See HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching [2011] 5 HKLRD 690. T
18
See criminal record, items 16-19 and memo from Commissioner of Correctional Services dated 4
March 2022.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
a repeat offender of dishonest offences and that the burglary was
C committed jointly with two other persons but not because the offence was C
19
committed whilst on bail .
D D
35. On 12 April 2021 the defendant was sentenced to a total of 6
E E
weeks’ imprisonment for two offences of failing to give information on
F demand which sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to the F
sentence imposed on 6 January 2021.
G G
H 36. On 30 April 2021 the defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ H
imprisonment for possession of offensive weapon which sentence was
I I
ordered to be served consecutive to the sentences imposed on 6 January
J 2021 and 12 April 202120. J
K K
37. I note all the offences for which the defendant is now serving
L
sentence were committed after the present offences. From all the L
information available to the court it would appear the fact the offences were
M M
committed whilst on bail was not taken into account.
N N
38. In considering totality of sentence Mr Tze asks the court to
O take into account the delay in charging the defendant. Ms Ma informs the O
court the defendant was charged on 23 March 2021, almost three years
P P
after he was arrested.
Q Q
39. The delay appears to be the time taken by the Department of
R R
Justice in giving legal advice. The file was submitted to the Department
S S
19
T Agreed translation of the reasons for sentence in DCCC 168/2019 were submitted to court. T
20
The defendant was also convicted of other offenses the sentences for which were ordered to be
served concurrent to the sentence of 12 months.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
of Justice in January 2019 and advice given in February 2021. No
C explanation has been given for taking two years to give advice, although I C
note the file was sent at the time the pandemic first broke out.
D D
40. Taking all these matters into account I am satisfied a total
E E
sentence to be served by the defendant of 5 years, 3 months and 42 days’
F imprisonment is appropriate. Accordingly, I order 12 months’ F
imprisonment consecutive and 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the
G G
sentence the defendant is now serving.
H H
I I
J J
(D. J. DUFTON)
K District Judge K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 425/2021
[2022] HKDC 224
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 425 OF 2021
E ____________ E
HKSAR
F v F
LEE KIN YIP
G G
____________
H H
Before: HH Judge Dufton
I Date: 4 March 2022 I
Present: Ms Judy Ma, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
J Mr James Tze, instructed by S.H. Chan & Co, J
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the defendant
K
Offences: (1) Theft (盜竊罪) K
(2) Possession of offensive weapon in a public place
L
(在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器) L
M REASONS FOR SENTENCE M
N 1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft of a vehicle, N
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance1 and one charge of possession
O O
of an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a dagger, contrary to
P section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance2. P
Q Q
2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the summary of
R facts dated 4 March 2022 admitted by the defendant today3. R
S S
1
Cap 210.
T 2
T
Cap 245.
3
The summary of facts was amended in court.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
3. In summary on 19 March 2018 Mr Wong lent his Lexus car
C registration mark KL 1214 to Mr Chan. Around 1430 hours on 27 March C
2018 Mr Chan parked KL 1214 at an outdoor carpark at 30 Luen Wan
D D
Street in Mongkok. The rules of the carpark required Mr Chan to leave the
E car key with the security guard on duty. E
F 4. At around 0230 hours on 28 March 2018, an unknown male F
approached Mr Chu, the security guard on duty, claiming to be Mr Chan’s
G G
friend and saying he needed to get the parking ticket from the car. Mr Chu
H therefore gave him the car key of KL 1214. The car was then driven away H
from the carpark.
I I
J 5. CCTV of the carpark showed the unknown male approach Mr J
Chu; Mr Chu giving the key to the unknown male and the unknown male
K K
leaving the carpark and returning one minute later with another male who
L drove the car away4. L
M M
6. At 1827 hours on 29 March 2018 uniform police spotted the
N car outside Nos. 279-281 Reclamation Street in Mongkok at which time N
the car was bearing licence plate KL 779.
O O
7. Inside the car the police found the dagger, which was a 36 cm
P P
long knife, on the floor of the rear left passenger seat. A cover for the knife
Q and a pair of licence plates UA 1678 were found on the floor of the front Q
passenger seat5.
R R
S 4
The prosecution case is that the defendant was not the unknown male who approached Mr Chu or S
the unknown male who drove the car away. The prosecution case is one of joint enterprise based
T on the defendant’s admission that when he walked past the carpark he noticed the car and decided T
to take the car away for fun and asked a person called Lau to help him steal the car.
5
Ms Ma informed the court the search of the car took place at 2050 hours.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. The defendant’s fingerprint was later found on the licence
C plate UA 1678. C
D 9. CCTV footage of 279 Reclamation Street shows three persons D
alighting from the car at 1749 hours on 29 March 2018.
E E
F Arrest F
G 10. The defendant was arrested on 4 April 2018. In a video G
recorded interview, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that when he walked
H H
past the carpark he noticed the car and decided to take the car away for fun;
I he told a person called Lau to help him by approaching the security guard I
and telling the security guard he had lost the parking ticket; Lau handed
J J
over the car to him in the early hours of 28 March 2018; on 29 March 2018
K K
when driving the car he saw his friends and drove them to Reclamation
L
Street where they stopped to go to a convenience store; when he saw L
uniformed police near the car he did not return to the car; he bought the
M M
knife with cover some time ago for collection purposes but forgot when
N and where and that he bought the licence plates KL779 and UA 1678. N
O Mitigation O
P P
11. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and
Q written submissions of Mr Tze, including that the defendant who is 47, Q
divorced and lives with his parents, is now serving sentence6.
R R
12. I have read the defendant’s mitigation letter in which he says
S S
he has reflected on his past and feels deeply regretful. The defendant asks
T T
6
See §§1-3 of the skeleton mitigation submission.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
for a lenient sentence so that he may take care of his family. Mr Tze
C informs the court the family having contracted Covid-19 are unable to C
attend court today to support the defendant and ask for a lenient sentence.
D D
Charge 1 - theft of vehicle
E E
F 13. There are no guidelines for offences of theft of vehicles, each F
case depending on its own facts. Deterrent sentences are nevertheless
G G
required. As was said in HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming7:
H H
“Cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars are
I very serious offences and inevitably call for immediate custodial I
sentences of considerable length. This is absolutely necessary to
J act as a deterrent to a prevalent crime.” J
K K
14. In Cheng Chun Ming the Court of Appeal upheld a starting
L point of 3 years’ imprisonment for the handling of one stolen vehicle, L
described as casual and opportunistic8.
M M
N
15. Mr Tze refers the court to my reasons for sentence in HKSAR N
9
v Ngai Ming Yin and the cases referred to therein . In Ngai Ming Yin I took
O
a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for theft of a motor O
P
cycle, valued at $51,900, where the ignition had been altered and a false P
number plate placed on the motorcycle and 2 years and 3 months’
Q Q
imprisonment for theft of motorcycles valued at $61,000 and $68,000.
R R
7
CACC 356/2000.
S S
8
Also see HKSAR v Muhammad Waqas [2019] 4 HKLRD 323; HKSAR v Yu Chi Chiu [2017] 1
HKLRD 400; HKSAR v Kan Tak Man CACC 122/2016.
T T
9
DCCC 226/2021; [2021] HKDC 1031.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
16. The Lexus car was first registered in 2009 in the value of
C $310,400. The parties have agreed that the estimated market value of the C
10
car in 2018 was around $40,000 .
D D
17. Taking into account that the Lexus car is valued at around
E E
$40,000; the circumstances of the theft and that the licence plate was
F changed, no doubt to avoid detection, I am satisfied the proper starting F
point after trial is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H Charge 2 – possession of an offensive weapon in a public place H
I 18. Mr Tze submits the dagger was bought as a collectible item11. I
As indicated in court, taking into account that the dagger was found in the
J J
car and not at the home of the defendant and can in no way be described as
K K
ornamental, I do not accept this explanation. Having taken instructions
L
from the defendant, Mr Tze informs the court the defendant does not wish L
to give evidence as to why he possessed the dagger.
M M
19. Section 33(2)(d) of the Ordinance provides that a person
N N
convicted of an offence who is of the age of 25 years or more shall be
O sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 3 years. There are no O
guideline sentences, the length of sentence depending on the facts of each
P P
case.
Q Q
20. Mr Tze refers the court to HKSAR v Chan Ming Lok where on
R R
appeal against a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment the court held a
S sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment after trial was appropriate for S
T 10
T
See amended §1 of the summary of facts.
11
See §9 of the skeleton mitigation submission.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
possession of a relatively small domestic knife where the court could not
C exclude the possibility the knife was a weapon of defence and by reason of C
12
the fact the defendant had never before been sentenced to imprisonment .
D D
21. Photographs of the dagger have been submitted to court.
E E
Clearly the dagger is not a relatively small domestic knife. A dagger is
F capable of causing very serious harm. The carrying of such a dagger in a F
public place is a serious offence. I am satisfied the proper starting point
G G
after trial is 12 months’ imprisonment.
H H
Persistent offender
I I
22. A starting point may be increased where the defendant is a
J J
persistent offender. The defendant has appeared in court on nineteen
K K
occasions since 1991 amassing a total of thirty-one convictions. Twenty
L
convictions were prior to the arrest of the defendant for the present offences, L
including twelve convictions for offences of dishonesty, including theft
M M
from vehicle but not theft of vehicle and three convictions for possession
N of offensive weapons and prohibited weapons13. N
O 23. I am satisfied the defendant is a persistent offender and O
enhance the starting points by 3 months to 2 years and 9 months’
P P
imprisonment and 15 months’ imprisonment respectively.
Q Q
R R
S S
12
T [2009] 6 HKC 7. T
13
Since his arrest the defendant has again been convicted of theft from vehicle in 2019, burglary in
2021 and possession of offensive weapons in 2019 and 2021.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
24. Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces
C the sentence for theft to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment and for C
possession of offensive weapon to 10 months’ imprisonment.
D D
Totality
E E
F 25. I am satisfied possession of the dagger adds to the culpability F
of the defendant. Consecutive sentences are appropriate.
G G
26. Mr Tze asks the court to take into account that apart from the
H H
fingerprint found on the licence plate UA 1678, the only evidence against
I the defendant was his confession. In asking for a discount in sentence Mr I
Tze refers the court to HKSAR v Tsang Kai On where the court gave a
J J
discount of 4 months’ imprisonment . 14
K K
27. This discount was disapproved of in HKSAR v Ma Ming where
L L
the Court of Appeal held that the fact that a frank confession provides the
M only evidence which supports the charge did not entitle the defendant to a M
further discount over and above the one-third discount15.
N N
O 28. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam16 reaffirmed O
the position that a judge was not obliged to give a discount over and above
P P
the one-third discount explaining that the mitigating factor of a confession
Q was subsumed within the one-third discount. Q
R R
S S
14
CACC 79/2010.
T 15
T
[2013] 1 HKLRD 813 at §32.
16
[2016] 5 HKLRD 1 at §41.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
29. The court in HKSAR v Ma Ming did however say that when
C considering the totality of the sentence a court, in exercising its discretion, C
can take into account the fact that the frank confession of a defendant
D D
provides the only evidence to support the charge.
E E
30. Taking into account the defendant’s confession, I am satisfied
F a total sentence of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment properly reflects F
the defendant’s criminality on the two charges and takes into account the
G G
defendant’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences . 17
H H
31. The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
I I
Charge 1 – 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment;
J J
K Charge 2 – 10 months’ imprisonment with 5 months K
consecutive and 5 months concurrent to charge 1.
L L
M
32. The total sentence is 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. M
N 33. The defendant is currently serving a total sentence of 4 years, N
3 months and 42 days’ imprisonment18. On 6 January 2021 the defendant
O O
was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for burglary and 3 months’
P imprisonment consecutive for failing to surrender to court. P
Q Q
34. The burglary was committed on 24 June 2018 and was
R therefore committed while on bail for the present offences. I note the R
sentencing judge enhanced the sentence by reason of the defendant being
S S
17
T See HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching [2011] 5 HKLRD 690. T
18
See criminal record, items 16-19 and memo from Commissioner of Correctional Services dated 4
March 2022.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
a repeat offender of dishonest offences and that the burglary was
C committed jointly with two other persons but not because the offence was C
19
committed whilst on bail .
D D
35. On 12 April 2021 the defendant was sentenced to a total of 6
E E
weeks’ imprisonment for two offences of failing to give information on
F demand which sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to the F
sentence imposed on 6 January 2021.
G G
H 36. On 30 April 2021 the defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ H
imprisonment for possession of offensive weapon which sentence was
I I
ordered to be served consecutive to the sentences imposed on 6 January
J 2021 and 12 April 202120. J
K K
37. I note all the offences for which the defendant is now serving
L
sentence were committed after the present offences. From all the L
information available to the court it would appear the fact the offences were
M M
committed whilst on bail was not taken into account.
N N
38. In considering totality of sentence Mr Tze asks the court to
O take into account the delay in charging the defendant. Ms Ma informs the O
court the defendant was charged on 23 March 2021, almost three years
P P
after he was arrested.
Q Q
39. The delay appears to be the time taken by the Department of
R R
Justice in giving legal advice. The file was submitted to the Department
S S
19
T Agreed translation of the reasons for sentence in DCCC 168/2019 were submitted to court. T
20
The defendant was also convicted of other offenses the sentences for which were ordered to be
served concurrent to the sentence of 12 months.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
of Justice in January 2019 and advice given in February 2021. No
C explanation has been given for taking two years to give advice, although I C
note the file was sent at the time the pandemic first broke out.
D D
40. Taking all these matters into account I am satisfied a total
E E
sentence to be served by the defendant of 5 years, 3 months and 42 days’
F imprisonment is appropriate. Accordingly, I order 12 months’ F
imprisonment consecutive and 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the
G G
sentence the defendant is now serving.
H H
I I
J J
(D. J. DUFTON)
K District Judge K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V