區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui4/11/2025[2025] HKDC 1905
DCCC851/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 851/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1905 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 851 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I VU THI KIM OANH I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 5 November 2025
L L
Present: Ms Ku Pui Fong Susanna, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Davies Oliver Howell, instructed by Damien Shea & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the
O Director of Immigration after landed unlawfully in Hong O
Kong（在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權而留
P P
在香港）
Q Q
[2] Using a forged identity card（使用偽造身分證）
R [3] Taking employment while being a person who remains in R
Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of
S S
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
（身為在香港非法入境後但未得入境事務處處長授權而
C 留在香港的人接受僱傭工作） C
[4] Breach of deportation order（違反遞解離境令）
D D
E E
F
--------------------------------------- F
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
G G
---------------------------------------
H H
Introduction
I I
J 1. The defendant appeared before me facing the following J
charges:
K K
L (1) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the L
Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully
M M
in Hong Kong, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the
N Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Charge 1”); N
O O
(2) Using a forged identity card, contrary to section 7A(1)
P of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177 P
(“Charge 2”);
Q Q
R (3) Taking employment while being a person who remains R
in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of
S S
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong
T unlawfully, contrary to sections 38AA(1)(a) and T
38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(“Charge 3”); and
C C
(4) Breach of deportation order, contrary to section
D D
43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115
E (“Charge 4”). E
F F
2. The defendant pleaded guilty to all the charges she faced and
G admitted the facts presented by the Prosecution. G
H H
The Facts Admitted
I I
3. On 9 March 2010, a deportation order was issued against the
J J
defendant prohibiting her from entering Hong Kong. The defendant left
K Hong Kong for Hanoi, Vietnam on 12 April 2010. K
L L
4. On 17 December 2024, the defendant approached Mr Yip, the
M proprietor of “Yat Fai Restaurant” in Sai Kung, Hong Kong (“the M
Restaurant”), seeking employment as an odd-job worker. She presented a
N N
forged Hong Kong Identity Card under a false name and was hired at
O HK$72 per hour, starting work on 18 December 2024 and worked each day O
from 10:30 am to 5:30 pm.
P P
Q 5. On 20 December 2024, PC28352 saw the defendant, wearing Q
an apron and rain boots, deposing garbage at the back alley next to the
R R
Restaurant. PC28352 intercepted the defendant. She admitted arriving
S illegally in Hong Kong by boat from Shenzhen on 14 December 2024 and S
stated the Hong Kong Identity Card was bought in Vietnam. PC28352 then
T T
arrested and cautioned her.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 6. In a subsequent cautioned interview, the defendant admitted C
to entering Hong Kong illegally by boat from Shenzhen on 14 December
D D
2024, having paid HK$20,000 for the journey and purchasing the forged
E Hong Kong Identity Card in Vietnam for RMB 300 to secure employment. E
She knew that she was not permitted to enter Hong Kong, and stated that
F F
the apron and rain boots she wore were provided by the Restaurant.
G G
7. The Hong Kong Identity Card was confirmed to be forged.
H H
I Background and Criminal Record I
J J
8. The defendant is currently 55 years old and holds Vietnamese
K citizenship. Prior to her arrival in Hong Kong, she resided in Vietnam with K
her elderly parents. Following the death of her husband in 2013, the
L L
defendant became the sole financial provider for her family. In Vietnam,
M she was previously employed as a farm worker but had recently become M
unemployed.
N N
O 9. The defendant has been before the Court on one occasion with O
two convictions. One was for “unlawfully remaining,” which is similar to
P P
Charge 1, and the other was for a “theft” offence, resulting in sentences of
Q 15 months and 2 months’ imprisonment, respectively. Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
10. Mr Davies, Counsel for the defendant, has provided me with
T T
his written submission for mitigation. In mitigation, it was said that the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
case cannot be said to be the most serious of its kind, as the defendant did
C not come to Hong Kong to be involved in any criminal activity except for C
taking up employment illegally. The work she did was menial and
D D
modestly paid and she only worked in the Restaurant for a short period of
E time. Mr Davies told the court that it is unlikely to have impacted on local E
job opportunities, resulting in minimal harm.
F F
G 11. It was said that financial hardship, unemployment, and family G
responsibilities in Vietnam led the defendant to enter Hong Kong illegally
H H
to earn money. She has only two previous convictions, both of which were
I committed 15 years before the present offences. Upon arrest, the defendant I
cooperated fully with authorities, admitted her guilt, and showed clear
J J
remorse.
K K
12. In mitigation, Mr Davies urged the Court to consider that all
L L
the charges stem from the same incident and suggested that the sentences
M should be served concurrently. He referred the court to the following M
authorities for my consideration: HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1
N N
HKLRD 903; and HKSAR v Nguyen Thi Phu [2012] 1 HKLRD 903.
O O
13. Nonetheless, I observe that the authorities cited by Mr Davies
P P
do not support his submission that the sentences for all four charges ought
Q to be served concurrently. When asked for clarification, Mr Davies Q
explained that he was inviting the court to impose concurrent sentences for
R R
the first three charges only, rather than for all of the charges.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Sentencing Considerations
C C
Unlawful remaining in Hong Kong – Charge 1
D D
E 14. On the charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, the E
normal sentence would be for a first offender 15 months after plea if no
F F
humanitarian mitigating factors exist, referring to the authority of R v So
G Man King [1989] 1 HKLR 142. If an offender repeats this offence, a higher G
sentence would be appropriate to serve as a deterrent.
H H
I 15. After considering all factors, including mitigation, I find no I
sufficient reason to depart from the established sentencing tariff. Since this
J J
is the defendant’s second commission of the offence, a starting point of 24
K months’ imprisonment is adopted. This sentence is reduced by one-third K
due to the defendant’s guilty plea, resulting in a total of 16 months’
L L
imprisonment for Charge 1.
M M
Using a forged identity card – Charge 2
N N
O 16. In HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193, the O
Court of Appeal held that where an offender has used a forged identity card
P P
to conceal their identity, work illegally, or unlawfully extend their stay in
Q Hong Kong, a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment on a guilty plea will Q
generally be imposed. This corresponds to a starting point of 22 and a half
R R
months’ imprisonment before considering any reduction for a guilty
S plea. See also HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
17. I note that this is the defendant’s first offence for using a
C forged identity card. Therefore, I adopt a starting point of 22 and a half C
months’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect her guilty
D D
plea. She is therefore sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.
E E
Section 38AA offence – Charge 3
F F
G 18. In HKSAR v Usman Butt [2010] 5 HKLRD 452, the Court of G
Appeal established a tariff of 15 months’ imprisonment following a guilty
H H
plea, indicating a starting point of 22 and a half months’ imprisonment
I prior to plea for offences under Section 38AA. The principal rationale for I
this sentencing approach is deterrence.
J J
K 19. Therefore, the appropriate starting point for this charge is 22 K
and a half months’ imprisonment. After deducting the customary one-third
L L
discount for plea, the sentence on Charge 3 is 15 months’ imprisonment.
M M
Breach of deportation order – Charge 4
N N
O 20. Breaches of Deportation Orders are regarded as very serious O
by the court. To enter Hong Kong in defiance of such an order is a separate
P P
and distinct offence from illegal entry and the criminality is
Q greater. In HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002] 2 HKLRD 762, the Q
offence of breach of deportation order was considered more serious than
R R
unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. Deputy Judge McMahon, as he then
S was, said that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment after plea for such S
an offence cannot be criticized since it is a deliberate circumvention of an
T T
order directed at the offender personally.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 21. In HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin HCMA716/2004, Beeson C
J said that the authorities indicate that for a first offence of breach of a
D D
deportation order, a starting point of 27 months would be appropriate.
E E
22. Coming back to the present case, this is the Defendant’s first
F F
offence for breach of deportation order. I see no particular reason to depart
G from the above sentencing tariff. After deduction for plea of guilty, the G
sentence on Charge 4 is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I Totality I
J J
23. With regard to the totality of the sentences imposed upon the
K defendant, I refer myself to the authority of Tran Viet Thanh and Nguyen K
Thi Phu.
L L
M 24. In Tran Viet Thanh, the Court of Appeal, in paragraphs 24 to M
27 of its judgment, reviewed sentencing for multiple offences. The
N N
appellant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for possession of a
O forged identity card; this sentence was not enhanced due to a prior O
conviction, as the sentence for unlawfully remaining (18 months) had
P P
already been increased and both sentences were ordered to run
Q concurrently. Regarding possession of false instruments, an eight-month Q
term was imposed, with two months to be served consecutively owing to
R R
the different nature of the offence. A previous breach of deportation
S resulted in a 20-month sentence, of which five months were to be served S
consecutively. The aggregate sentence imposed was 25 months’
T T
imprisonment.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 25. In Nguyen Thi Phu, the Court of Appeal upheld a 15-month C
sentence for possessing a forged identity card. The 15-month sentence for
D D
unlawfully remaining was increased to 18 months due to prior convictions;
E both sentences were to be served concurrently. For breaching a deportation E
order, a 20-month sentence was imposed, with four months to be served
F F
consecutively, resulting in a total of 22 months’ imprisonment.
G G
26. The Court of Appeal in Tran Viet Thanh considered whether
H H
concurrent or consecutive sentences should be imposed for using a
I forged identity card and unlawful remaining. The court stated that, unless I
there are exceptional circumstances, offences of possessing a forged
J J
identity card and unlawful remaining in Hong Kong are generally
K sentenced concurrently. The core offence is the unlawful presence, while K
the forged identity card is mainly used to conceal that status. The standard
L L
sentence is 15 months’ imprisonment, which may be increased if the forged
M document is used to gain benefits, such as seeking employment. Even if M
the two sentences remain concurrent, the severity of the case can be
N N
reflected by adjusting the length of the sentence. Whether to impose
O consecutive sentences depends on the specific facts of each case, see para O
17, 22 and 23 of the judgment.
P P
Q The sentence imposed Q
R R
27. Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the
S totality principle, and referring to the guidance in Tran Viet Thanh and S
Nguyen Thi Phu, I impose the following sentences: -
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 1 – 16 months’ imprisonment;
C C
Charge 2 – 15 months’ imprisonment to be served
D D
concurrently to Charge 1;
E E
Charge 3 – 15 months’ imprisonment to be served
F F
concurrently to Charges 1 and 2;
G G
Charge 4 - 18 months’ imprisonment, 4 months to be served
H H
consecutively to Charges 1 to 3, making a total
I of 20 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1 to 4. I
J J
28. The total sentence to be served by the defendant for all four
K offences is 20 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
M M
( Ivy Chui )
N N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 851/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1905 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 851 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I VU THI KIM OANH I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 5 November 2025
L L
Present: Ms Ku Pui Fong Susanna, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Davies Oliver Howell, instructed by Damien Shea & Co, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: [1] Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the
O Director of Immigration after landed unlawfully in Hong O
Kong（在香港非法入境後未得入境事務處處長授權而留
P P
在香港）
Q Q
[2] Using a forged identity card（使用偽造身分證）
R [3] Taking employment while being a person who remains in R
Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of
S S
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
（身為在香港非法入境後但未得入境事務處處長授權而
C 留在香港的人接受僱傭工作） C
[4] Breach of deportation order（違反遞解離境令）
D D
E E
F
--------------------------------------- F
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
G G
---------------------------------------
H H
Introduction
I I
J 1. The defendant appeared before me facing the following J
charges:
K K
L (1) Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the L
Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully
M M
in Hong Kong, contrary to section 38(1)(b) of the
N Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Charge 1”); N
O O
(2) Using a forged identity card, contrary to section 7A(1)
P of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177 P
(“Charge 2”);
Q Q
R (3) Taking employment while being a person who remains R
in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of
S S
Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong
T unlawfully, contrary to sections 38AA(1)(a) and T
38AA(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(“Charge 3”); and
C C
(4) Breach of deportation order, contrary to section
D D
43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115
E (“Charge 4”). E
F F
2. The defendant pleaded guilty to all the charges she faced and
G admitted the facts presented by the Prosecution. G
H H
The Facts Admitted
I I
3. On 9 March 2010, a deportation order was issued against the
J J
defendant prohibiting her from entering Hong Kong. The defendant left
K Hong Kong for Hanoi, Vietnam on 12 April 2010. K
L L
4. On 17 December 2024, the defendant approached Mr Yip, the
M proprietor of “Yat Fai Restaurant” in Sai Kung, Hong Kong (“the M
Restaurant”), seeking employment as an odd-job worker. She presented a
N N
forged Hong Kong Identity Card under a false name and was hired at
O HK$72 per hour, starting work on 18 December 2024 and worked each day O
from 10:30 am to 5:30 pm.
P P
Q 5. On 20 December 2024, PC28352 saw the defendant, wearing Q
an apron and rain boots, deposing garbage at the back alley next to the
R R
Restaurant. PC28352 intercepted the defendant. She admitted arriving
S illegally in Hong Kong by boat from Shenzhen on 14 December 2024 and S
stated the Hong Kong Identity Card was bought in Vietnam. PC28352 then
T T
arrested and cautioned her.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 6. In a subsequent cautioned interview, the defendant admitted C
to entering Hong Kong illegally by boat from Shenzhen on 14 December
D D
2024, having paid HK$20,000 for the journey and purchasing the forged
E Hong Kong Identity Card in Vietnam for RMB 300 to secure employment. E
She knew that she was not permitted to enter Hong Kong, and stated that
F F
the apron and rain boots she wore were provided by the Restaurant.
G G
7. The Hong Kong Identity Card was confirmed to be forged.
H H
I Background and Criminal Record I
J J
8. The defendant is currently 55 years old and holds Vietnamese
K citizenship. Prior to her arrival in Hong Kong, she resided in Vietnam with K
her elderly parents. Following the death of her husband in 2013, the
L L
defendant became the sole financial provider for her family. In Vietnam,
M she was previously employed as a farm worker but had recently become M
unemployed.
N N
O 9. The defendant has been before the Court on one occasion with O
two convictions. One was for “unlawfully remaining,” which is similar to
P P
Charge 1, and the other was for a “theft” offence, resulting in sentences of
Q 15 months and 2 months’ imprisonment, respectively. Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
10. Mr Davies, Counsel for the defendant, has provided me with
T T
his written submission for mitigation. In mitigation, it was said that the
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
case cannot be said to be the most serious of its kind, as the defendant did
C not come to Hong Kong to be involved in any criminal activity except for C
taking up employment illegally. The work she did was menial and
D D
modestly paid and she only worked in the Restaurant for a short period of
E time. Mr Davies told the court that it is unlikely to have impacted on local E
job opportunities, resulting in minimal harm.
F F
G 11. It was said that financial hardship, unemployment, and family G
responsibilities in Vietnam led the defendant to enter Hong Kong illegally
H H
to earn money. She has only two previous convictions, both of which were
I committed 15 years before the present offences. Upon arrest, the defendant I
cooperated fully with authorities, admitted her guilt, and showed clear
J J
remorse.
K K
12. In mitigation, Mr Davies urged the Court to consider that all
L L
the charges stem from the same incident and suggested that the sentences
M should be served concurrently. He referred the court to the following M
authorities for my consideration: HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1
N N
HKLRD 903; and HKSAR v Nguyen Thi Phu [2012] 1 HKLRD 903.
O O
13. Nonetheless, I observe that the authorities cited by Mr Davies
P P
do not support his submission that the sentences for all four charges ought
Q to be served concurrently. When asked for clarification, Mr Davies Q
explained that he was inviting the court to impose concurrent sentences for
R R
the first three charges only, rather than for all of the charges.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Sentencing Considerations
C C
Unlawful remaining in Hong Kong – Charge 1
D D
E 14. On the charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, the E
normal sentence would be for a first offender 15 months after plea if no
F F
humanitarian mitigating factors exist, referring to the authority of R v So
G Man King [1989] 1 HKLR 142. If an offender repeats this offence, a higher G
sentence would be appropriate to serve as a deterrent.
H H
I 15. After considering all factors, including mitigation, I find no I
sufficient reason to depart from the established sentencing tariff. Since this
J J
is the defendant’s second commission of the offence, a starting point of 24
K months’ imprisonment is adopted. This sentence is reduced by one-third K
due to the defendant’s guilty plea, resulting in a total of 16 months’
L L
imprisonment for Charge 1.
M M
Using a forged identity card – Charge 2
N N
O 16. In HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2004-2005] HKCLRT 193, the O
Court of Appeal held that where an offender has used a forged identity card
P P
to conceal their identity, work illegally, or unlawfully extend their stay in
Q Hong Kong, a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment on a guilty plea will Q
generally be imposed. This corresponds to a starting point of 22 and a half
R R
months’ imprisonment before considering any reduction for a guilty
S plea. See also HKSAR v Tran Viet Thanh [2012] 1 HKLRD 903. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
17. I note that this is the defendant’s first offence for using a
C forged identity card. Therefore, I adopt a starting point of 22 and a half C
months’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect her guilty
D D
plea. She is therefore sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2.
E E
Section 38AA offence – Charge 3
F F
G 18. In HKSAR v Usman Butt [2010] 5 HKLRD 452, the Court of G
Appeal established a tariff of 15 months’ imprisonment following a guilty
H H
plea, indicating a starting point of 22 and a half months’ imprisonment
I prior to plea for offences under Section 38AA. The principal rationale for I
this sentencing approach is deterrence.
J J
K 19. Therefore, the appropriate starting point for this charge is 22 K
and a half months’ imprisonment. After deducting the customary one-third
L L
discount for plea, the sentence on Charge 3 is 15 months’ imprisonment.
M M
Breach of deportation order – Charge 4
N N
O 20. Breaches of Deportation Orders are regarded as very serious O
by the court. To enter Hong Kong in defiance of such an order is a separate
P P
and distinct offence from illegal entry and the criminality is
Q greater. In HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002] 2 HKLRD 762, the Q
offence of breach of deportation order was considered more serious than
R R
unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. Deputy Judge McMahon, as he then
S was, said that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment after plea for such S
an offence cannot be criticized since it is a deliberate circumvention of an
T T
order directed at the offender personally.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 21. In HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin HCMA716/2004, Beeson C
J said that the authorities indicate that for a first offence of breach of a
D D
deportation order, a starting point of 27 months would be appropriate.
E E
22. Coming back to the present case, this is the Defendant’s first
F F
offence for breach of deportation order. I see no particular reason to depart
G from the above sentencing tariff. After deduction for plea of guilty, the G
sentence on Charge 4 is 18 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I Totality I
J J
23. With regard to the totality of the sentences imposed upon the
K defendant, I refer myself to the authority of Tran Viet Thanh and Nguyen K
Thi Phu.
L L
M 24. In Tran Viet Thanh, the Court of Appeal, in paragraphs 24 to M
27 of its judgment, reviewed sentencing for multiple offences. The
N N
appellant was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for possession of a
O forged identity card; this sentence was not enhanced due to a prior O
conviction, as the sentence for unlawfully remaining (18 months) had
P P
already been increased and both sentences were ordered to run
Q concurrently. Regarding possession of false instruments, an eight-month Q
term was imposed, with two months to be served consecutively owing to
R R
the different nature of the offence. A previous breach of deportation
S resulted in a 20-month sentence, of which five months were to be served S
consecutively. The aggregate sentence imposed was 25 months’
T T
imprisonment.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 25. In Nguyen Thi Phu, the Court of Appeal upheld a 15-month C
sentence for possessing a forged identity card. The 15-month sentence for
D D
unlawfully remaining was increased to 18 months due to prior convictions;
E both sentences were to be served concurrently. For breaching a deportation E
order, a 20-month sentence was imposed, with four months to be served
F F
consecutively, resulting in a total of 22 months’ imprisonment.
G G
26. The Court of Appeal in Tran Viet Thanh considered whether
H H
concurrent or consecutive sentences should be imposed for using a
I forged identity card and unlawful remaining. The court stated that, unless I
there are exceptional circumstances, offences of possessing a forged
J J
identity card and unlawful remaining in Hong Kong are generally
K sentenced concurrently. The core offence is the unlawful presence, while K
the forged identity card is mainly used to conceal that status. The standard
L L
sentence is 15 months’ imprisonment, which may be increased if the forged
M document is used to gain benefits, such as seeking employment. Even if M
the two sentences remain concurrent, the severity of the case can be
N N
reflected by adjusting the length of the sentence. Whether to impose
O consecutive sentences depends on the specific facts of each case, see para O
17, 22 and 23 of the judgment.
P P
Q The sentence imposed Q
R R
27. Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the
S totality principle, and referring to the guidance in Tran Viet Thanh and S
Nguyen Thi Phu, I impose the following sentences: -
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 1 – 16 months’ imprisonment;
C C
Charge 2 – 15 months’ imprisonment to be served
D D
concurrently to Charge 1;
E E
Charge 3 – 15 months’ imprisonment to be served
F F
concurrently to Charges 1 and 2;
G G
Charge 4 - 18 months’ imprisonment, 4 months to be served
H H
consecutively to Charges 1 to 3, making a total
I of 20 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1 to 4. I
J J
28. The total sentence to be served by the defendant for all four
K offences is 20 months’ imprisonment. K
L L
M M
( Ivy Chui )
N N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V