HKSAR v. WONG NGAI PAN (ALSO KNOWN AS WONG NGAI PUN) AND OTHERS

DCCC 735/2019

[2020] HKDC 875

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 735 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  D1 pleads guilty to one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17 of the Theft Ordinance[1] and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance[2](charge 1); two charges of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17 of the Theft Ordinance (charges 2 & 3); two charges of possessing an identity card relating to another person, contrary to section 7A (1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance[3] (charges 7 & 8); one charge of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (charge 13) and one charge of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 36 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (charge 14).

2.  D2 pleads guilty to one charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to section 17 of the Theft Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance (charge 1); two charges of possessing an identity card relating to another person, contrary to section 7A (1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance (charges 7 & 8); one charge of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance (charge 11) and one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance (charge 12).  

3.  D5 pleads guilty to one charge of making a false statutory declaration, contrary to section 36 (a) of the Crimes Ordinance (charge 4); one charge of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 159C (6) of the Crimes Ordinance (charge 6); and two charges of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance (charges 10 & 11).

4.  Full details of the offences are set out in the re-re-amended summary of facts dated 23 September 2020 which were admitted by the defendants today[4].   

Charges 1, 2 & 3

5.  Charges 1, 2 & 3 concern the use of an American Express credit card in the name of Eliza Chan (PW4).  Eliza Chan had not applied for the AE card (“the AE card”).  

6.  The AE card had been applied for on-line on 25 December 2018 using a copy of Ms Chan’s British passport.  The application was approved on 29 December 2018 with the AE card being delivered to a DHL Service Centre. 

7.  The AE card was to be delivered to Ms Chan’s residential address however at 11:26 a.m. on 29 December 2018 a female, claiming to be Ms Chan, called DHL informing them an authorized person would collect the AE card.  At 7:49 p.m. the same day a male Sung Wing Cheung presented a copy of Ms Chan’s Hong Kong identity card together with an authorization letter and collected the AE card. 

Charge 1 - against D1 & D2

8.  Just over two hours later at around 10 p.m. (29 December 2018) D1 and D2 went to Fortress in Maritime Square, Tsing Yi.  D1 attempted to buy two iPhones costing a total of $21,598.  D1 presented the AE card and signed on the transaction slip twice but the signatures did not match the signature on the back of the card. 

9.  When Mr Yeung, staff of Fortress, noticed the AE card was in the name of a female D2 also signed a transaction slip twice, which signature also did not match the signature on the back of the card. 

10.  Mr Yeung therefore called the American Express credit card centre who asked to speak to D1.  D1 told the card centre he was the son of the cardholder.  After D1 ended the call he told Mr Yeung that the cardholder would purchase the goods later.  D1 and D2 then left after which the transaction was cancelled.

Charges 2 & 3 – against D1

11.  The next day D1 used the AE card to obtain clothing and bags to the value of $10,054 from Citistore in the Kolour shopping mall in Tsuen Wan and ten iPhones to the value of $98,990 from DM Mobile in Nam Fung Centre, also in Tsuen Wan.

12.  On 2 January 2019 the American Express Card Centre alerted Ms Chan that her personal information may have been misused for application of the AE card.  The case was then reported to the police.  Ms Chan never authorized anyone to use her British passport or identity card which had been kept by her and had not been stolen or lost. 

13.  The AE card, which did not have a credit limit, was not retrieved by the police.

Charges 4, 6, 10, 11 & 12

14.  Charges 4, 6, 10, 11 & 12 concern the use of a stolen Hong Kong identity card and a Bank of China ATM card (account no: 012-745-10058-528) (“the ATM card”) belonging to Mr Yu Chun Kong (PW5).  On 19 June 2018 Mr Yu’s wallet containing his Hong Kong identity card, the ATM card, his driving licence and his home return permit was stolen from his car.  

15.  On 25 June 2018 a male was arrested for theft from vehicle.  No stolen property was recovered at that time therefore Mr Yu applied for a new identity card and an ATM card from the Bank of China.

16.  The ATM card, the driving licence and the home return permit were recovered on 19 February 2019 when D1, D2 and D3 were arrested[5].

Charges 4, 6, 11 & 12

17.  Charges 4, 6, 11 & 12 concern the fraudulent obtaining of the funds in Mr Yu’s mandatory provident fund.  Mr Yu maintained an MPF account with Manulife Provident Funds Trust Company Limited (“the MPF account”). 

18.  The MPF account could be accessed on-line.  On 2 September 2018 someone logged onto the MPF account without the authorization of Mr Yu and changed the registered email address.  On 10 October 2018 someone again logged onto the MPF account without the authorization of Mr Yu and changed the registered postal address[6].

Charge 4 - against D5

19.  On 18 January 2019 D5 went to the Tsuen Wan District Office Home Affairs Department to make a statutory declaration.  D5 presented the stolen Hong Kong identity card of Mr Yu and falsely declared that he was the genuine holder of the identity card; that he will be leaving Hong Kong permanently and intended to withdraw the accrued benefits in the MPF account of Mr Yu.

20.  Mr Yu did not authorise anyone to apply to withdraw the accrued benefits in his MPF account[7].

21.  Under caution D5 admitted, inter alia, that he was acquainted with D1, who he knew as “Ah Bun”; D1 passed him Mr Yu’s stolen Hong Kong identity card and asked him to impersonate the holder of the identity card to make an attestation at the Home Affairs Department[8].

Charge 6 - against D5

22.  On 23 January 2019 Manulife received an application for payment of accrued benefits on the grounds of permanent departure from Hong Kong.  A copy of the false statutory declaration was attached to the application.

23.  On the same day D5 went to the Chong Hing Bank.  D5 presented the stolen Hong Kong identity card of Mr Yu and requested to open a bank account in Mr Yu’s name. 

24.  The application was successful and a new account was opened (‘the fraudulent bank account”).  An ATM card was also issued and posted to an address supplied by D5 (“the fraudulent ATM card”).

25.  Mr Yu did not open any bank account with the Chong Hing Bank[9]. 

26.  Under caution D5 admitted that he was instructed to open a bank account using the identity card given to him by D1[10].

27.  Facebook messages asking D5 to impersonate the holder of the identity card in return for a reward were found on the mobile phones of D1 and D5[11]. 

Charge 11 against D2 & D5 & charge 12 against D2

28.  In mid-February 2019 Manulife issued a cheque in the sum of $354,648 being the balance in Mr Yu’s MPF account.  On 18 February 2019 D5 deposited the cheque in the fraudulent bank account.

Charge 12

29.  The next day, 19 February 2019, at 3:47 p.m., D2 withdrew $10,000 from the fraudulent bank account by using the fraudulent ATM card. 

30.  When D2 was arrested later the same day the fraudulent ATM card was found during a body search of D2[12].

Charge 11

31.  At around 4 p.m, the same day, 19 February 2019, D5 went to the Cheung Fat Plaza branch of the Chong Hing Bank in Tsing Yi and using the stolen Hong Kong identity card of Mr Yu withdrew $150,000 from the fraudulent bank account. 

32.  WhatsApp messages at 4:04 p.m. sent by D1 instructing D2 to accompany and supervise D5 to withdraw $150,000 and agreeing to pay D5 a reward of $10,000 were found on the mobile phones of D1 and D2[13].

33.  Under caution D5 admitted withdrawing $150,000; passing the money to D1 and D2 and receiving a reward of $19,000[14].

34.  CCTV footage shows D2 and D5 going to the bank between 3:57 p.m. and 4:08 p.m.

35.  On 21 February 2019 the fraudulent bank account was frozen with a remaining balance of $194,756.17.

Charge 10 - against D5

36.  On 11 February 2019 D5 went to the Kwai Chung branch of Bank of China.  D5 presented the stolen Hong Kong identity card of Mr Yu and withdrew $65,000 from Mr Yu’s bank account, the same account as the stolen Bank of China ATM card.    

37.  Mr Yu did not make the withdrawal.

38.  Under caution D5 admitted withdrawing $65,000; passing the money to D1 and D2 (who he knew as “Miki”) and receiving a reward of $8,000[15].

Charges 7 & 8 - against D1, D2 & D3

39.  Charges 7 & 8 concern the possession of lost Hong Kong identity cards.  D3 pleaded guilty to charges 7 & 8 on 4 November 2019.

40.  On 18 June 2018 Mr Poon Wing Hong (PW11) lost his waist bag containing his Hong Kong Identity card.

41.  On or about 18 August 2018 Ms Chan Wing Sze (PW12) lost her wallet containing her Hong Kong Identity card.

42.  At 9:10 p.m. on 19 February 2019 D1, D2 and D3 were arrested when returning to Room No. 27, Flat 2012, Rear Portion, Wah Fat Industrial Building, Nos. 10-14 Kung Yip Street in Kwai Chung (“the room”).

43.  Access cards to the room were found on a body search of D2 and from D1’s wallet which was on the desk inside the room.  D2 was also found in possession of the fraudulent ATM card and three USB thumb drives containing various softcopy bank documents, utility bills and identity documents of others. 

44.  The identity cards of Mr Poon and Ms Chan were found inside the room.  Also found in the room were other genuine identity cards, China identity cards, two-way permits, credit cards, cheque books, letters and bank statements relating to one hundred and fifteen other people.

45.  D2 created a WhatsApp group with D1 and D3 in which they discussed ways to steal letters and exchanged photographs of identity cards and personal information of other people.

46.  The room had been rented by D1 in January 2019 in the name of Fung Wai Hung.  D1 and D2 had negotiated the rental agreement with the landlord at which time D1 presented a copy of a Hong Kong identity card in the name of Fung Wai Hung saying that Mr Fung was his boss and had asked him to rent a room.  On one occasion D2 handed over cash to the landlord to settle the rent. 

47.  Mr Fung (PW16), who had lost his identity card in August 2018, did not authorise anyone to rent a room on his behalf.    

48.  WhatsApp messages sent on 2 February 2019 asking D3 to conceal all illegal stuff from the landlord were found on the mobile phones of D2 and D3. 

Charges 13 & 14 - against D1

49.  The police found on the desk inside the room one plastic bag containing 0.28 gramme of a crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”) and one inhaling device containing 8 millilitres of a liquid containing methamphetamine.

50.  Under caution D1 admitted buying the ice and using the inhaling device for consuming the ice.

Mitigation

51.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr Sio, Mr Kwan and Mr Cheung together with the authorities submitted by counsel[16].

D1

52.  I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Sio on behalf of D1, who is 30, divorced and lives with his mother and younger sister and the two children of the marriage, who are aged 6 and 9[17]. 

53.  I have read D1’s mitigation letter in which he asks for leniency so that he may look after his daughters.  I have also read the letter written by D1’s mother who describes D1 as a filial son who has worked hard to look after her after his father passed away and asks for the most lenient sentence.  

Persistent offending

54.  D1 has appeared in court on nine previous occasions accumulating sixteen convictions, including eight convictions for offences of dishonesty, two for using an identity card belonging to another and one for possession of dangerous drugs. 

55.  D1 last appeared in court in 2015 when he was sentenced in DCCC 647/2015 to 4 years’ imprisonment for two offences of obtaining property by deception; two offences of theft and two offences of using an identity card belonging to another.  D1 was released from prison on 22 January 2018[18].  The first of the present offences was committed in December 2018.   

56.  I have read the Reasons for Sentence imposed in 2015 and note the similarity in the offending, D1 using a stolen credit card to obtain goods and a stolen identity card to open a bank account.  I am satisfied D1 is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender and that an enhancement of sentence is appropriate for charges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8.

D2

57.  I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Kwan on behalf of D2, who is 31.  Prior to her arrest D2 was living with D1, who was her boyfriend and out of love and loyalty she committed the present offences[19]. 

58.  Although D2 has previous convictions for dishonesty and for possession of a forged identity card belonging to another person, I take into account that these were in 2003 and 2004 when D2 was under 16 years of age.

D5

59.  I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Cheung on behalf of D5, who is 30, single and worked as a shop-keeper[20]. 

60.  D5 says that he committed the offences due to financial difficulty[21].  I have read the mitigation letter written by the defendant in which he asks for leniency so he can to take care of his mother who has recently been diagnosed with psychiatric illness[22].

61.  D5 has appeared in court on three previous convictions in 2009, 2015 and 2017.  In 2017 D5 was fined for gambling in a gambling establishment whereas in 2009 and 2015 D5 was convicted of offences of dishonesty.

62.  In 2009 D5 was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment for robbery.  In 2015 D5 was sentenced to a total of 2 years’ imprisonment for thirteen offences of obtaining property by deception, four offences of obtaining services by deception and one offence of theft.  Mr Cheung is not correct when submitting D5 has only one similar conviction record[23].

63.  D5 was released from prison on 24 August 2016[24]. I was the sentencing judge in 2015 (DCCC 518/2015).  In that case the defendant stole his sister’s credit card which he used over a period of ten days to obtain goods and services to the value of just less than $24,000.

64.  Taking into account that D5 managed to remain out of trouble for over 2 years and although the present offences are also offences of dishonesty, the mode of offending is very different, I do not enhance the starting points by reason of D5’s previous convictions.

Sentence

Charge 1 against D1 & D2 and charges 2 & 3 against D1

65.  Charges 1, 2 & 3 concern the use of a fraudulently obtained American Express credit card (“the AE card”).

66.  I take into account the factors which a sentencing judge will need to consider in credit card frauds as set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Chan Sui To, including the size of the operation; the planning that had gone into perpetrating the fraud; whether there is an international dimension; and whether the accused played a major role.  The factors were not intended however to be exhaustive but provide valuable assistance to the court.  The courts have repeatedly stressed that deterrent sentences are to be imposed[25]. 

67.  Where the facts of the offence point to a small unsophisticated operation, involving one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation, a starting point of 3 years or less would be appropriate[26].

68.  In R v Chan Sui To the Court of Appeal suggested that an accused who plays an active but not necessarily a key role in a medium sized operation involving between $50,000 and $150,000 with no elaborate planning and equipment and without an international element, should receive a sentence of five to six years after trial[27].

69.  The court further stated that sentences may be adjusted upwards or downwards according to the circumstances and that the sum of money involved is only one of the factors to be taken into account and not even the most significant factor[28].

70.  Mr Kwan submits that since the judgment in R v Chan Sui To was in 1996 the court should consider the impact of inflation on the value of money[29].

71.  Where the defendant is not acting alone and is obviously part of a wider organisation a higher sentence is appropriate.  D1 used the AE card just over two hours after the AE card was collected showing his connection to a wider organisation involved in the fraudulent obtaining of credit cards. 

72.  Taking into account D1 just over two hours after the AE card was collected used the AE card in an attempt to obtain goods valued at $21,598 and the next day used the AE card to obtain goods valued at $10,054 and $98,990, I am satisfied a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate on each charge which starting point I enhance by 3 months by reason of D1’s persistent offending to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

73.  Giving D1 full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

74.  Although D2 was only involved in the use of the AE card once, this was clearly not an isolated act on her part as is clearly shown by the other charges and the USB thumb drives found in her possession when she was arrested.    

75.  I am satisfied a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate for D2 on charge 1.  Giving D2 full credit for her plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

Charges 4, 6 & 11 against D5 and charges 11 & 12 against D2

76.  Charges 4, 6, 11 & 12 concern the use of Mr Yu’s Hong Kong identity card to obtain the accrued benefits of Mr Yu’s MPF account. 

77.  Mr Cheung on behalf of D5, who is only involved in these charges, refers the court to HKSAR v Mak Chi Kwong[30] and submits starting points of 9-12 months are appropriate for the charges faced by D5[31]. 

78.  The facts of that case are very different to the fraud subject of charges 4, 6 and 11 to which D5 has pleaded guilty not least that the amount obtained was far less than the present case[32].

79.  The present fraud was clearly well planned.  In summary after Mr Yu’s identity card had been stolen and his email address and postal address changed, D5 made the false declaration that Mr Yu was intending to leave Hong Kong permanently. 

80.  The false declaration was then used to apply for payment of the accrued benefits of Mr Yu’s MPF account.  The same day D5 requested to open the fraudulent bank account.    

81.  After the fraudulent bank account was opened D5 deposited the cheque for $354,648 in the account.  The next day D1, D2 and D5 went to the bank.  Using the stolen identity card of Mr Yu, D5 withdrew $150,000 and D2 withdrew $10,000 by ATM. 

82.  No doubt if D1 and D2 had not been arrested the same day and the fraudulent bank account frozen, the remainder of the monies in the fraudulent bank account would have been withdrawn.

Charge 4 – making a false statutory declaration – against D5

83.  The maximum sentence is imprisonment for 2 years and a fine.  I am satisfied a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Giving D5 full credit for his plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 12 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 6 – Conspiracy to defraud – against D5

84.  I am satisfied the appropriate starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment.  Giving D5 full credit for his plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Charge 11 – fraud - against D2 & D5

85.  I am satisfied a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  I am satisfied no distinction should be made in the roles of D2 and D5, each playing an important role in the obtaining of the money. 

86.  Giving D2 and D5 full credit for their pleas of guilty reduces the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

Charge 12 – theft – against D2

87.  I am satisfied a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Giving D2 full credit for her plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 4 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 10 – fraud – against D5

88.  I am satisfied a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for using the stolen identity card of Mr Yu to steal $65,000 from Mr Yu’s Bank of China account. Giving D5 full credit for his plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 8 months’ imprisonment. 

Charges 7 & 8 - possessing identity cards relating to another person – against D1 and D2

89.  As noted earlier D3 pleaded guilty on 4 November 2019 to charges 7 and 8.  D3 was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on each charge with 1 month and 2 weeks of the sentence on charge 8 ordered to run consecutively making a total sentence of 13 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

90.  I have read the reasons of the Deputy Judge who referred to HKSAR v Li Chang Li[33].  With respect HKSAR v Li Chang Li concerned a visitor from the Mainland not a Hong Kong resident.

91.  In HKSAR v Fan King Lam the Court of Appeal said that where the offender is a Hong Kong permanent resident there is no specific tariff[34]. 

92.  The only inference to draw from the events of December 2018 and January 2019 together with all the documents found inside the room rented by D1 and D2 is that the identity cards were to be used for an unlawful purpose, whether that be in conjunction with obtaining or using credit cards or opening bank accounts. 

93.  I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial for each of charges 7 and 8 is 18 months’ imprisonment which in the case of D1 I enhance by 3 months by reason of D1’s persistent offending. 

94.  Giving D1 full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on charges 7 & 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment.  Giving D2 full credit for her pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on charges 7 & 8 to 12 months’ imprisonment. 

Charges 13 & 14 – possession of ice and apparatus fit for inhaling ice –against D1

95.  In HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik the Court of Appeal said the starting point for possession of drugs which a bona fide user normally has in his possession should be in the range of 12 to 18 months but this does not seek to exclude magistrates from imposing lesser terms for very small quantities where the circumstances so warrant[35].

96.  Taking into account the quantity of dangerous drug was 0.28 gramme containing ice, the ice not being quantified, I am satisfied a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for charge 13[36].  I am satisfied a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment is also appropriate for possession of apparatus fit and intended for inhalation of ice[37].

97.  I do not enhance the starting points for the dangerous drug offences.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment on each of charges 13 and 14.    

D1

Totality

98.  Charges 1, 2 & 3 all concerning the same credit card I am satisfied concurrent sentences are appropriate. 

99.  I am satisfied that concurrent sentences are appropriate for possession of the two identity cards relating to another person (charges 7 & 8).  These charges however add to the culpability of D1.  I am satisfied 8 months is to be served consecutive and 6 months concurrent to charges 1, 2 and 3.

100.  I am satisfied that concurrent sentences are appropriate for the two dangerous drug offences (charges 13 and 14).  The two offences are however entirely separate and distinct from the other offences.  I am satisfied a wholly consecutive sentence is appropriate. 

101.  This makes a total sentence to be served by D1 of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. I am satisfied a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment properly reflects D1’s criminality on the seven charges and takes into account D1’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences[38].     

Sentence

102.  D1 is convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charges 1, 2 & 3 - 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge;

Charges 7 & 8 – 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge with 8 months consecutive and 6 months concurrent to charges 1, 2 & 3; and

Charges 13 & 14 - 2 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge but consecutive to charges 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8.

D1 serves a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

D2

Totality

103.  Charge 1 and charge 11 are entirely separate and distinct offences.  I am satisfied 12 months of the sentence on charge 11 is to be served consecutive to charge 1 and 12 months concurrent.

104.  The theft of $10,000 (charge 12) being from the same account the money was stolen in charge 11, I am satisfied a concurrent sentence is appropriate.

105.  I am satisfied that concurrent sentences are appropriate for possession of the two identity cards relating to another person (charges 7 & 8).  These charges however add to the culpability of D2.  I am satisfied 6 months is to be served consecutive and 6 months concurrent to charges 1, 11 and 12.

106.  This makes a total sentence to be served by D2 of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  I am satisfied a total sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment properly reflects D2’s criminality on the five charges and takes into account D2’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences[39].    

Sentence

107.  D2 is convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 - 2 years’ imprisonment;

Charge 11 - 2 years’ imprisonment with 12 months consecutive and 12 months concurrent to charge 1;

Charge 12 - 4 months’ imprisonment concurrent to charges 1 & 11; and

Charges 7 & 8 - 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge with 6 months consecutive and 6 months concurrent to charges 1, 11 & 12.

D2 serves a total sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

D5

Totality

108.  Charges 4, 6 and 11 are all part of the same fraud to obtain the accrued benefits of Mr Yu’s MPF account.  I am satisfied concurrent sentences are appropriate. 

109.  Although the theft in charge 10 also involves using the same stolen Hong Kong identity card of Mr Yu, the bank account the money was stolen from was Mr Yu’s account and not the fraudulent bank account.   I am satisfied 4 months of the sentence on charge 10 is to be served consecutive and 4 months concurrent to charges 4, 6 & 11.

110.  This makes a total sentence to be served by D5 of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  I am satisfied a total sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment properly reflects D5’s criminality on the four charges and takes into account D5’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences[40].    

111.  D5 is convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 4 - 12 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 6 - 2 years’ imprisonment concurrent to charge 4;

Charge 11 - 2 years’ imprisonment concurrent to charges 4 & 6; and

Charge 10 - 8 months’ imprisonment with 4 months consecutive and 4 months concurrent to charges 4, 6 & 11.

D5 serves a total sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.