HKSAR v. HUSSAIN MUBASHIR

DCCC467/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 467 OF 2009

----------------------

----------------------

-----------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

-----------------------------

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of one offence of unlawful assembly on 20 June last year at Kwai Chung Plaza.

2.  The facts of the case are set out in the verdict I gave at the time of convicting the defendant. But, briefly, he was recruited by a friend to bring some African males along to a “show force” at Kwai Chung Plaza and the “show force” related to a dispute, commercial dispute between tenants and landlords at that plaza. Some 100 young men gathered, dressed in a similar manner, obviously to intimidate one of the parties. There was no violence used. And although threats were made to PW1, they were not made by this defendant. But to a certain extent, he and his friends must have been there to reinforce.

3.  Cases of this sort are normally visited by a sentence of imprisonment although they would normally not be dealt with in this court for sentences would be shorter than those that would be normally imposed by this court.

4.  I obtained some reports on the defendant because he was within the age that would be susceptible to the training in a detention centre.

5.  Prior to this case, the defendant had a clear record. He is 21. He is a married man, originally from Pakistan, educated in Hong Kong and he can speak Cantonese. Being a casual worker at the airport and a delivery worker and a security guard at a disco in Tsim Sha Tsui, it appears that that led to him befriending with some triads and that led to his involvement in this offence.

6.  The defendant is said to have a loose lifestyle. The conclusion from the detention centre report is he is not suitable for incarceration in a detention centre because he is a drug dependent. The background report really adds nothing to the conclusions reached in the detention centre report. The only training that will be relevant to this defendant is that that would be concerned with his drug dependency. But this case does not, as I say, arise out of his smoking cannabis, and I intend to sentence him for this matter only and treat his drug dependency somewhat separate. In any event, the likely sentence that would be imposed for an offence of this kind would be not for the same length as detentions in institutions such as a drug addiction training centre.

7.  Also in calculation of sentence, I bear in mind the period that the defendant has spent in custody as it was spent not immediately before his conviction. I would have to reduce any sentence that I impose by the amount plus remission spent in custody prior to trial. That would not fall with the calculation in the normal manner.

8.  What I shall do is, as a starting point for sentence in this case, 16 weeks’ imprisonment, I shall reduce it by the time spent in custody with the remission element, and that is 6 weeks’ imprisonment, leading to a final sentence of 10 weeks’ imprisonment. That is the sentence I impose.