A A
B B
DCCC 890/2024
C [2025] HKDC 71 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 890 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I PARAMJIT SINGH I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 10 January 2025
L L
Present: Mr C K Siu Stanley, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Laskey Edward Francis Lebreton, instructed by Yeungs, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence(s): [1] - [3] Theft (盜竊罪)
O O
[4] Resisting arrest with arms (以槍械拒捕)
P P
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
---------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Before me, Mr Paramjit pleaded guilty to 3 charges of Theft,
C contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charges 1 to 3); and C
one charge of Resisting arrest with arms, contrary to section 17(1) of the
D D
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238 (Charge 4).
E E
2. Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 10 August 2023, at
F F
“Watsons”, Shop Nos 32A & 32B, Ground Floor, No 22 Paterson Street,
G Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 5 cans of milk powder, property G
belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
H H
I 3. Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on 13 August 2023, at I
“Watsons”, Shop Nos 32A & 32B, Ground Floor, No 22 Paterson Street,
J J
Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 11 bottles of skincare products and
K one can of milk powder, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) K
Limited.
L L
M 4. Particulars of Charge 3 are that he, on 28 January 2024, at M
“Park’N Shop”, Basement 1st Floor, No 463-483 Lockhart Road,
N N
Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 16 boxes of chocolate, property
O belonging to PARKnSHOP (HK) Limited. O
P P
5. Particulars of Charge 4 are that he, on 29 January 2024, at the
Q rear lane, Nos 2-4 Spring Garden Lane, Wan Chai, in Hong Kong, made Q
any use whatsoever of arms, namely one spray canister containing noxious
R R
chemicals, with intent to resist the lawful arrest of himself.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts admitted by Mr Paramjit
C C
Charge 1
D D
E 6. On 10 August 2023, at about 1737 hours, Mr Paramjit acted E
furtively by looking around and took 5 cans of milk powder at Watsons of
F F
22 Paterson Street and left without paying. The stolen property valued at
G $1,149 belonged to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited. G
H H
Charge 2
I I
7. On 13 August 2023, at about 1805 hours, Mr Paramjit acted
J J
furtively by looking around and took a can of milk powder and 11 bottles
K of skincare products from the sales rack and left the same Watsons store at K
about 1815 hours without paying. The stolen property valued at $1,423
L L
belonged to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
M M
8. The case was reported to the police.
N N
O Charge 3 O
P P
9. On 28 January 2024, at about 1140 hours, Mr Paramjit
Q wearing a yellow hoodie and a grey scarf entered ParknShop of 463-483 Q
Lockhart Road. At about 1153 hours, he took 16 boxes of chocolate,
R R
placed them in a yellow plastic bag and left at about 1155 hours without
S paying. At the same time, the shop alarm rang. The case was reported to S
the police. The stolen property valued at $1,478.40 belonged to
T T
PARKnSHOP (HK) Limited.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 10. Mr Paramjit was placed on wanted list. C
D D
Charge 4
E E
11. On 29 January 2024, at about 1629 hours, during an anti-
F F
pickpocketing operation, PC 24651 (“PC”) in plainclothes spotted Mr
G Paramjit outside Wan Chai MTR Station Exit A3 and thought the latter G
looked like the wanted person.
H H
I 12. PC approached Mr Paramjit and showed his police ID card. I
Mr Paramjit immediately turned around and fled into Tai Yuen Street. PC
J J
chased after Mr Paramjit and kept warning him, “Police, don’t move.”
K When PC was about 3-5 meters behind Mr Paramjit, the latter turned into K
the rear lane, 2-4 Spring Garden Lane where he suddenly fell.
L L
M 13. PC therefore controlled Mr Paramjit and displayed his police M
ID card again; he stated the reasons for arrest. When PC was reporting his
N N
position to other police officers, Mr Paramjit stood up and pushed PC away.
O PC grabbed Mr Paramjit’s outfit trying to restrain him but the latter resisted O
vigorously. PC took out his OC foam and warned Mr Paramjit. However,
P P
Mr Paramjit took away the OC foam and sprayed it at PC’s face for about
Q 1-2 seconds. PC felt pain in his eyes but he did not let go of Mr Paramjit Q
until a few passersby came to assist in subduing the latter.
R R
S 14. At about 1626 hours, another officer arrived and subdued Mr S
Paramjit.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. At about 1650 hours, PC found abrasions on the left side of
C his mouth and neck. C
D D
16. At about 1656 hours, Mr Paramjit was arrested. A yellow
E hoodie and a grey scarf were seized from him. E
F F
17. Upon medical examination on the same day, PC was found to
G have (i) redness on both eyes; (ii) left face abrasion; and (iii) neck abrasion. G
PC was medically treated and discharged on the same day with 3 days sick
H H
leave granted.
I I
18. The redness of both eyes of PC was caused by Mr Paramjit
J J
using the OC foam (being a spray canister) on him. The left face abrasion
K and neck abrasion sustained by PC were caused by Mr Paramjit during the K
struggle between them.
L L
M 19. The OC foam was subsequently sent to the Government Lab M
for examination. Forensic scientist PW13 found some stains at the nozzle
N N
of the OC foam. The stains were found to have contained capsaicin and
O dihydrocapsaicin. PW13 opined that capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin were O
often found in personal protection devices, usually a spray canister/device
P P
with an operating button associated with a nozzle for discharge over a
Q range and targeting the subject in the eyes or face. When used in this Q
context, the ability of capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin to elicit a burning
R R
sensation on the soft mucosal tissues qualified them as noxious chemcials.
S S
20. The OC foam used by Mr Paramjit was arms within the
T T
meaning of section 2 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C Criminal record C
D D
21. Mr Paramjit has 14 previous convictions of which 12 were for
E theft and one was for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. E
F F
Antecedents
G G
22. Mr Paramjit is aged 34 (33 at the time of the offences), born
H H
in India, and is a Form 8 recognizance holder. He has received education
I up to Primary 5 level. He came to Hong Kong in 2015. He was I
unemployed at the time of arrest.
J J
K 23. Mr Paramjit is married. His wife is in Hong Kong but the other K
relatives are in India.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
24. Mr Edward Laskey of counsel assigned by the Director of
O Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Paramjit. The following is a summary O
of the mitigation submissions.
P P
Q 25. Mr Paramjit’s mother (65) has been admitted to a hospital in Q
India because of a liver problem and there is no prospect of release. His
R R
wife is in Hong Kong and has been detained by the Immigration for 18
S months. Mr Paramjit asks for an early release as he is the only one who S
can help both his mother and his wife.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
26. Charges 1 to 3 all fall within the line of “shoplifting” cases.
C The appropriate starting point for each charge should be no more than 5 C
months: HKSAR v Yang Yan Yun [2014] 1 HKLRD 564 at para 35.
D D
E 27. Charge 4 is resisting arrest with arms, namely releasing E
noxious chemicals from one spray canister. There is no binding authority
F F
or sentencing guideline from the Court of Appeal. Reference could only
G be made from those at the District Court level and English authorities. G
H 28. Mr Laskey referred to the following cases:- H
I I
(a) HKSAR v Law Ka Leung DCCC 856/2015, per HHJ
J Dufton: resisting arrest with an arm; fired airgun twice J
when being chased and stuggling; starting point of 3
K K
years’ imprisonment; and
L L
(b) R v Wellington (1988) 10 Cr App R (S) 384: using an
M M
imitation firearm with intent to resist arrest; threatened
N
chasers with imitation firearm; two years’ N
O
imprisonment after plea; starting point not doubted O
though appeal focused on other matters.
P P
Q 29. Mr Laskey also relied on The Sentencing Council Guideline Q
on “Firearms – Possession with intent – other offences”. Mr Laskey
R R
submitted that this case belongs to “Category C – Lower culpability”
S (where the offender has little or no planning or who commits a less serious S
nature of this offence) and that the harm aspect belongs to “Category 3”
T T
(where no serious physical or psychological harm was caused). As such,
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
so Mr Laskey submits, where firearm was involved, a starting point of 2
C years’ imprisonment, with a sentence range between 1 and 3 years’ C
imprisonment, would be appropriate; and in a case where imitation firearm
D D
was involved, a starting point of 1 year’s imprisonment, with a sentence
E range between high level community order and 2 years’ imprisonment, E
would be appropriate.
F F
G 30. Mr Laskey asks the court to note the following salient features G
of the case:-
H H
I (a) Mr Paramjit neither owned the spray canister nor used I
it in any course of committing thefts. It instead
J J
belonged to PC;
K K
(b) The spray was used in a split second without planning,
L L
and it lasted only 1 to 2 seconds;
M M
(c) The physical and psychological effects of using a gun
N N
or air gun to resist arrest were way more serious than
O the use of a spray; and O
P P
(d) The spray only caused limited harm, ie redness on PC’s
Q eyes. Q
R R
31. Mr Laskey submitted that because of the aforesaid salient
S features, the starting point for Charge 4 should be no more than 1 year 6 S
months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
32. Mr Laskey laid emphasis on Mr Paramjit’s timely plea of
C guilty which entitles him to the usual one-third discount. C
D D
33. Regarding totality, the court is urged to order the sentence for
E Charge 4 to run slightly consecutively to the sentences for the theft charges. E
F F
Sentence
G G
34. I have seen a set of 5 photos provided by the prosecution
H H
(since returned) showing the police constable’s facial and neck injuries.
I They added nothing to the written description contained in the Amended I
Summary of Facts.
J J
K 35. There are in this case two aggravating factors: (1) the fact that K
Mr Paramjit is a Form 8 recognizance holder which works against him in
L L
all charges; and (2) the fact that Mr Paramjit is a clear recidivist for theft
M offences which works against him in Charges 1 to 3. M
N N
36. For Charges 1 to 3, I accede to the submission of Mr Laskey
O and adopt as an initial starting point for each charge of 5 months’ O
imprisonment. For the dual aggravating factors aforesaid, the starting point
P P
of each of the theft charges is increased to 7 months.
Q Q
37. I have been informed by the prosecution that for item 9 of Part
R R
A of Mr Paramjit’s criminal record summary ie 2 offences of theft
S (shoplifting) committed on the same day namely 18 August 2023 (post the S
two offences subject of the present Charges 1 and 2). For these past
T T
offences, Mr Paramjit has previously been sentenced to a total of 6 months’
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
imprisonment (together with orders of monetary compensation) after (so I
C was told by Mr Laskey) pleas of guilty. C
D D
38. As such, when sentencing Mr Paramjit now, I deem it
E appropriate to consider the two past offences as well, as if I was sentencing E
him for a total of 5 charges of theft, together with the offence subject of the
F F
present Charge 4. Of course, in so doing, I will give credit for the 6 months’
G term that he has already served. G
H H
39. In deference to the sentencing magistrate, I shall adopt the
I actual custodial sentence that he/she has imposed on Mr Paramjit for the I
two past offences. For the present three offences of theft (subject of
J J
Charges 1 to 3), they were committed on 3 separate days (all different from
K the one date of the past two offences) with a total goods value of $4,050.40. K
To take a global approach on all 5 theft offences, I adopt a global and
L L
notional initial starting point of 19 months’ imprisonment.
M M
40. For the dual aggravating factors of Mr Paramjit being a
N N
recidivist for theft offences and a Form 8 Recognizance holder, I add 5
O months to the 19 months to reach the final global and notional starting point O
for 5 theft offences of 24 months’ imprisonment. Mr Paramjit pleaded
P P
guilty to all 5 offences. The sentence he should receive for them, in the
Q absence of other mitigating factors, should be 16 months’ imprisonment Q
after the 1/3 discount. Since he has already served 6 months for the two
R R
past offences, the outstanding sentence should be 10 months’
S imprisonment; this is the notional aggregate sentence for Charges 1 to 3. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
41. For Charge 4, I take into account the maximum penalty for
C the offence is one of life imprisonment. I have also borne in mind the C
various material placed before me by Mr Laskey, none of which has any
D D
binding force. I consider that relevant considerations included not only the
E injuries caused by the OC foam but also the face abrasion and neck E
abrasion caused during the struggle.
F F
G 42. Mr Laskey submitted as between going equipped and G
grabbing from a police constable the arms in question, the latter is less
H H
serious. With respect, I do not agree. Each has its serious aspect to it.
I Grabbing an OC foam from and re-directing its use back against the law I
enforcement officer in the public view has the distasteful colour of an open
J J
challenge to the law. The sentence for such use in an attempt to evade
K arrest ought to have a deterrent aspect to it to show the law’s abhorrence K
of such action.
L L
M 43. For Charge 4 then, I adopt an initial starting point of 2 years’ M
imprisonment. For Mr Paramjit’s status as a Form 8 Recognizance holder,
N N
I add 3 months to reach the final starting point in his case of 2 years and 3
O months’ imprisonment. In the absence of other mitigating factors, the O
sentence would be 18 months’ imprisonment after the 1/3 discount for plea.
P P
Q 44. I can detect no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant Q
any other reduction in the sentences.
R R
S 45. The offence subject of Charge 4 is completely separate and S
distinct from the other earlier offences. In principle, the associated
T T
sentence ought to run wholly consecutively to the other sentences but I will
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
consider the totality principle as applied to Mr Paramjit before passing the
C final sentence on him. C
D D
46. Of late, Mr Paramjit has been sentenced on 22 July 2024 to a
E term of 15 months minus 48 days (after plea, as I was told) for a case of E
Unlawful remaining in 2015. The case had a chequered history because of
F F
his having been released on recognizance and his non-refoulement claim
G and related judicial review proceedings. What is known is that he must G
have been charged to court in 2018 but because of the aforementioned legal
H H
proceedings, he was not convicted and sentenced until July 2024. I was
I told he has already completely served his sentence (maybe due to his earlier I
remand periods). I am satisfied that his sentence for Unlawful remaining
J J
should play no part in my current sentencing exercise for (a) it is of a
K different nature; (b) the offence is aged and he should have been sentenced K
a long time ago; and (c) in principle, the sentence for Unlawful remaining
L L
should, totality aside, be served wholly consecutively to the other sentences.
M M
47. Lastly, I have been told that technically, the present four
N N
offences were committed while Mr Paramjit was on (police) bail for
O another case of Smoke/Inject etc dangerous drug allegedly committed on O
6 July 2023 for which he was arrested on the same day. However, I was
P P
given to understand that the Department of Justice decided not to proceed
Q with the case sometime in February 2024. Because of the technical nature Q
of the matter, I have decided not to treat it as an additional aggravating
R R
factor against Mr Paramjit.
S S
(Mr Paramjit, please stand)
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
48. For Charge 1, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
C imprisonment. C
D D
49. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
E imprisonment. E
F F
50. For Charge 3, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
G imprisonment. G
H H
51. For Charge 4, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
I I
52. In order to arrive at the aggregate sentence of 10 months’
J J
imprisonment for Charges 1 to 3, I order that 2 months and 11 days of the
K sentence on Charge 2, and 3 months of the sentence on Charge 3, are each K
to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making a total sentence
L L
for Charges 1 to 3 of 10 months’ imprisonment, as I have indicated earlier.
M I shall call this the Group A sentence. M
N N
53. I further order that 5 months of the Group A sentence do run
O consecutively to the sentence on Charge 4, making a final sentence for Mr O
Paramjit one of 23 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Isaac Tam )
S District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 890/2024
C [2025] HKDC 71 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 890 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I PARAMJIT SINGH I
----------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 10 January 2025
L L
Present: Mr C K Siu Stanley, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Laskey Edward Francis Lebreton, instructed by Yeungs, M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence(s): [1] - [3] Theft (盜竊罪)
O O
[4] Resisting arrest with arms (以槍械拒捕)
P P
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
---------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Before me, Mr Paramjit pleaded guilty to 3 charges of Theft,
C contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charges 1 to 3); and C
one charge of Resisting arrest with arms, contrary to section 17(1) of the
D D
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238 (Charge 4).
E E
2. Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 10 August 2023, at
F F
“Watsons”, Shop Nos 32A & 32B, Ground Floor, No 22 Paterson Street,
G Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 5 cans of milk powder, property G
belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
H H
I 3. Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on 13 August 2023, at I
“Watsons”, Shop Nos 32A & 32B, Ground Floor, No 22 Paterson Street,
J J
Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 11 bottles of skincare products and
K one can of milk powder, property belonging to AS Watson Retail (HK) K
Limited.
L L
M 4. Particulars of Charge 3 are that he, on 28 January 2024, at M
“Park’N Shop”, Basement 1st Floor, No 463-483 Lockhart Road,
N N
Causeway Bay, in Hong Kong, stole 16 boxes of chocolate, property
O belonging to PARKnSHOP (HK) Limited. O
P P
5. Particulars of Charge 4 are that he, on 29 January 2024, at the
Q rear lane, Nos 2-4 Spring Garden Lane, Wan Chai, in Hong Kong, made Q
any use whatsoever of arms, namely one spray canister containing noxious
R R
chemicals, with intent to resist the lawful arrest of himself.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts admitted by Mr Paramjit
C C
Charge 1
D D
E 6. On 10 August 2023, at about 1737 hours, Mr Paramjit acted E
furtively by looking around and took 5 cans of milk powder at Watsons of
F F
22 Paterson Street and left without paying. The stolen property valued at
G $1,149 belonged to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited. G
H H
Charge 2
I I
7. On 13 August 2023, at about 1805 hours, Mr Paramjit acted
J J
furtively by looking around and took a can of milk powder and 11 bottles
K of skincare products from the sales rack and left the same Watsons store at K
about 1815 hours without paying. The stolen property valued at $1,423
L L
belonged to AS Watson Retail (HK) Limited.
M M
8. The case was reported to the police.
N N
O Charge 3 O
P P
9. On 28 January 2024, at about 1140 hours, Mr Paramjit
Q wearing a yellow hoodie and a grey scarf entered ParknShop of 463-483 Q
Lockhart Road. At about 1153 hours, he took 16 boxes of chocolate,
R R
placed them in a yellow plastic bag and left at about 1155 hours without
S paying. At the same time, the shop alarm rang. The case was reported to S
the police. The stolen property valued at $1,478.40 belonged to
T T
PARKnSHOP (HK) Limited.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 10. Mr Paramjit was placed on wanted list. C
D D
Charge 4
E E
11. On 29 January 2024, at about 1629 hours, during an anti-
F F
pickpocketing operation, PC 24651 (“PC”) in plainclothes spotted Mr
G Paramjit outside Wan Chai MTR Station Exit A3 and thought the latter G
looked like the wanted person.
H H
I 12. PC approached Mr Paramjit and showed his police ID card. I
Mr Paramjit immediately turned around and fled into Tai Yuen Street. PC
J J
chased after Mr Paramjit and kept warning him, “Police, don’t move.”
K When PC was about 3-5 meters behind Mr Paramjit, the latter turned into K
the rear lane, 2-4 Spring Garden Lane where he suddenly fell.
L L
M 13. PC therefore controlled Mr Paramjit and displayed his police M
ID card again; he stated the reasons for arrest. When PC was reporting his
N N
position to other police officers, Mr Paramjit stood up and pushed PC away.
O PC grabbed Mr Paramjit’s outfit trying to restrain him but the latter resisted O
vigorously. PC took out his OC foam and warned Mr Paramjit. However,
P P
Mr Paramjit took away the OC foam and sprayed it at PC’s face for about
Q 1-2 seconds. PC felt pain in his eyes but he did not let go of Mr Paramjit Q
until a few passersby came to assist in subduing the latter.
R R
S 14. At about 1626 hours, another officer arrived and subdued Mr S
Paramjit.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
15. At about 1650 hours, PC found abrasions on the left side of
C his mouth and neck. C
D D
16. At about 1656 hours, Mr Paramjit was arrested. A yellow
E hoodie and a grey scarf were seized from him. E
F F
17. Upon medical examination on the same day, PC was found to
G have (i) redness on both eyes; (ii) left face abrasion; and (iii) neck abrasion. G
PC was medically treated and discharged on the same day with 3 days sick
H H
leave granted.
I I
18. The redness of both eyes of PC was caused by Mr Paramjit
J J
using the OC foam (being a spray canister) on him. The left face abrasion
K and neck abrasion sustained by PC were caused by Mr Paramjit during the K
struggle between them.
L L
M 19. The OC foam was subsequently sent to the Government Lab M
for examination. Forensic scientist PW13 found some stains at the nozzle
N N
of the OC foam. The stains were found to have contained capsaicin and
O dihydrocapsaicin. PW13 opined that capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin were O
often found in personal protection devices, usually a spray canister/device
P P
with an operating button associated with a nozzle for discharge over a
Q range and targeting the subject in the eyes or face. When used in this Q
context, the ability of capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin to elicit a burning
R R
sensation on the soft mucosal tissues qualified them as noxious chemcials.
S S
20. The OC foam used by Mr Paramjit was arms within the
T T
meaning of section 2 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C Criminal record C
D D
21. Mr Paramjit has 14 previous convictions of which 12 were for
E theft and one was for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. E
F F
Antecedents
G G
22. Mr Paramjit is aged 34 (33 at the time of the offences), born
H H
in India, and is a Form 8 recognizance holder. He has received education
I up to Primary 5 level. He came to Hong Kong in 2015. He was I
unemployed at the time of arrest.
J J
K 23. Mr Paramjit is married. His wife is in Hong Kong but the other K
relatives are in India.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
24. Mr Edward Laskey of counsel assigned by the Director of
O Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Paramjit. The following is a summary O
of the mitigation submissions.
P P
Q 25. Mr Paramjit’s mother (65) has been admitted to a hospital in Q
India because of a liver problem and there is no prospect of release. His
R R
wife is in Hong Kong and has been detained by the Immigration for 18
S months. Mr Paramjit asks for an early release as he is the only one who S
can help both his mother and his wife.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
26. Charges 1 to 3 all fall within the line of “shoplifting” cases.
C The appropriate starting point for each charge should be no more than 5 C
months: HKSAR v Yang Yan Yun [2014] 1 HKLRD 564 at para 35.
D D
E 27. Charge 4 is resisting arrest with arms, namely releasing E
noxious chemicals from one spray canister. There is no binding authority
F F
or sentencing guideline from the Court of Appeal. Reference could only
G be made from those at the District Court level and English authorities. G
H 28. Mr Laskey referred to the following cases:- H
I I
(a) HKSAR v Law Ka Leung DCCC 856/2015, per HHJ
J Dufton: resisting arrest with an arm; fired airgun twice J
when being chased and stuggling; starting point of 3
K K
years’ imprisonment; and
L L
(b) R v Wellington (1988) 10 Cr App R (S) 384: using an
M M
imitation firearm with intent to resist arrest; threatened
N
chasers with imitation firearm; two years’ N
O
imprisonment after plea; starting point not doubted O
though appeal focused on other matters.
P P
Q 29. Mr Laskey also relied on The Sentencing Council Guideline Q
on “Firearms – Possession with intent – other offences”. Mr Laskey
R R
submitted that this case belongs to “Category C – Lower culpability”
S (where the offender has little or no planning or who commits a less serious S
nature of this offence) and that the harm aspect belongs to “Category 3”
T T
(where no serious physical or psychological harm was caused). As such,
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
so Mr Laskey submits, where firearm was involved, a starting point of 2
C years’ imprisonment, with a sentence range between 1 and 3 years’ C
imprisonment, would be appropriate; and in a case where imitation firearm
D D
was involved, a starting point of 1 year’s imprisonment, with a sentence
E range between high level community order and 2 years’ imprisonment, E
would be appropriate.
F F
G 30. Mr Laskey asks the court to note the following salient features G
of the case:-
H H
I (a) Mr Paramjit neither owned the spray canister nor used I
it in any course of committing thefts. It instead
J J
belonged to PC;
K K
(b) The spray was used in a split second without planning,
L L
and it lasted only 1 to 2 seconds;
M M
(c) The physical and psychological effects of using a gun
N N
or air gun to resist arrest were way more serious than
O the use of a spray; and O
P P
(d) The spray only caused limited harm, ie redness on PC’s
Q eyes. Q
R R
31. Mr Laskey submitted that because of the aforesaid salient
S features, the starting point for Charge 4 should be no more than 1 year 6 S
months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
32. Mr Laskey laid emphasis on Mr Paramjit’s timely plea of
C guilty which entitles him to the usual one-third discount. C
D D
33. Regarding totality, the court is urged to order the sentence for
E Charge 4 to run slightly consecutively to the sentences for the theft charges. E
F F
Sentence
G G
34. I have seen a set of 5 photos provided by the prosecution
H H
(since returned) showing the police constable’s facial and neck injuries.
I They added nothing to the written description contained in the Amended I
Summary of Facts.
J J
K 35. There are in this case two aggravating factors: (1) the fact that K
Mr Paramjit is a Form 8 recognizance holder which works against him in
L L
all charges; and (2) the fact that Mr Paramjit is a clear recidivist for theft
M offences which works against him in Charges 1 to 3. M
N N
36. For Charges 1 to 3, I accede to the submission of Mr Laskey
O and adopt as an initial starting point for each charge of 5 months’ O
imprisonment. For the dual aggravating factors aforesaid, the starting point
P P
of each of the theft charges is increased to 7 months.
Q Q
37. I have been informed by the prosecution that for item 9 of Part
R R
A of Mr Paramjit’s criminal record summary ie 2 offences of theft
S (shoplifting) committed on the same day namely 18 August 2023 (post the S
two offences subject of the present Charges 1 and 2). For these past
T T
offences, Mr Paramjit has previously been sentenced to a total of 6 months’
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
imprisonment (together with orders of monetary compensation) after (so I
C was told by Mr Laskey) pleas of guilty. C
D D
38. As such, when sentencing Mr Paramjit now, I deem it
E appropriate to consider the two past offences as well, as if I was sentencing E
him for a total of 5 charges of theft, together with the offence subject of the
F F
present Charge 4. Of course, in so doing, I will give credit for the 6 months’
G term that he has already served. G
H H
39. In deference to the sentencing magistrate, I shall adopt the
I actual custodial sentence that he/she has imposed on Mr Paramjit for the I
two past offences. For the present three offences of theft (subject of
J J
Charges 1 to 3), they were committed on 3 separate days (all different from
K the one date of the past two offences) with a total goods value of $4,050.40. K
To take a global approach on all 5 theft offences, I adopt a global and
L L
notional initial starting point of 19 months’ imprisonment.
M M
40. For the dual aggravating factors of Mr Paramjit being a
N N
recidivist for theft offences and a Form 8 Recognizance holder, I add 5
O months to the 19 months to reach the final global and notional starting point O
for 5 theft offences of 24 months’ imprisonment. Mr Paramjit pleaded
P P
guilty to all 5 offences. The sentence he should receive for them, in the
Q absence of other mitigating factors, should be 16 months’ imprisonment Q
after the 1/3 discount. Since he has already served 6 months for the two
R R
past offences, the outstanding sentence should be 10 months’
S imprisonment; this is the notional aggregate sentence for Charges 1 to 3. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
41. For Charge 4, I take into account the maximum penalty for
C the offence is one of life imprisonment. I have also borne in mind the C
various material placed before me by Mr Laskey, none of which has any
D D
binding force. I consider that relevant considerations included not only the
E injuries caused by the OC foam but also the face abrasion and neck E
abrasion caused during the struggle.
F F
G 42. Mr Laskey submitted as between going equipped and G
grabbing from a police constable the arms in question, the latter is less
H H
serious. With respect, I do not agree. Each has its serious aspect to it.
I Grabbing an OC foam from and re-directing its use back against the law I
enforcement officer in the public view has the distasteful colour of an open
J J
challenge to the law. The sentence for such use in an attempt to evade
K arrest ought to have a deterrent aspect to it to show the law’s abhorrence K
of such action.
L L
M 43. For Charge 4 then, I adopt an initial starting point of 2 years’ M
imprisonment. For Mr Paramjit’s status as a Form 8 Recognizance holder,
N N
I add 3 months to reach the final starting point in his case of 2 years and 3
O months’ imprisonment. In the absence of other mitigating factors, the O
sentence would be 18 months’ imprisonment after the 1/3 discount for plea.
P P
Q 44. I can detect no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant Q
any other reduction in the sentences.
R R
S 45. The offence subject of Charge 4 is completely separate and S
distinct from the other earlier offences. In principle, the associated
T T
sentence ought to run wholly consecutively to the other sentences but I will
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
consider the totality principle as applied to Mr Paramjit before passing the
C final sentence on him. C
D D
46. Of late, Mr Paramjit has been sentenced on 22 July 2024 to a
E term of 15 months minus 48 days (after plea, as I was told) for a case of E
Unlawful remaining in 2015. The case had a chequered history because of
F F
his having been released on recognizance and his non-refoulement claim
G and related judicial review proceedings. What is known is that he must G
have been charged to court in 2018 but because of the aforementioned legal
H H
proceedings, he was not convicted and sentenced until July 2024. I was
I told he has already completely served his sentence (maybe due to his earlier I
remand periods). I am satisfied that his sentence for Unlawful remaining
J J
should play no part in my current sentencing exercise for (a) it is of a
K different nature; (b) the offence is aged and he should have been sentenced K
a long time ago; and (c) in principle, the sentence for Unlawful remaining
L L
should, totality aside, be served wholly consecutively to the other sentences.
M M
47. Lastly, I have been told that technically, the present four
N N
offences were committed while Mr Paramjit was on (police) bail for
O another case of Smoke/Inject etc dangerous drug allegedly committed on O
6 July 2023 for which he was arrested on the same day. However, I was
P P
given to understand that the Department of Justice decided not to proceed
Q with the case sometime in February 2024. Because of the technical nature Q
of the matter, I have decided not to treat it as an additional aggravating
R R
factor against Mr Paramjit.
S S
(Mr Paramjit, please stand)
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
48. For Charge 1, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
C imprisonment. C
D D
49. For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
E imprisonment. E
F F
50. For Charge 3, the sentence is 4 months and 20 days’
G imprisonment. G
H H
51. For Charge 4, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.
I I
52. In order to arrive at the aggregate sentence of 10 months’
J J
imprisonment for Charges 1 to 3, I order that 2 months and 11 days of the
K sentence on Charge 2, and 3 months of the sentence on Charge 3, are each K
to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making a total sentence
L L
for Charges 1 to 3 of 10 months’ imprisonment, as I have indicated earlier.
M I shall call this the Group A sentence. M
N N
53. I further order that 5 months of the Group A sentence do run
O consecutively to the sentence on Charge 4, making a final sentence for Mr O
Paramjit one of 23 months’ imprisonment.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Isaac Tam )
S District Judge S
T T
U U
V V