HKSAR v. LAM SEE CHUNG STEPHEN

DCCC 346/2019

DCCC 625/2019

(Consolidated)

[2021] HKDC 165

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 346 OF 2019 & 625 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Defendant was convicted on his own plea and agreement to re-amended Summary of Facts to 16 charges of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210; and then 7 charges of driving without a valid driving licence, contrary to section 42(1) and (4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374; 7 charges of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272; 1 charge of possession of an identity card relating to another person, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177; 1 charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3)of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221; and 3 charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Facts

2.  The defendant is the sole signatory of both his Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) account (No 003-963-8-967382-0) and The Bank of East Asia (BEA) account (No 015-199-88-10636-4).  In relation to this case, cheques were drawn from these accounts when defendant knew they would not be honoured because either there was no or nearly no money in the account and/or because his signature on the relevant cheque was materially different from the specimen signature.

Incidents 1 to 9 (Charges 1 to 32)

3.  In each of the 9 incidents, the defendant approached the prosecution witnesses who posted online advertisement to sell their cars.  He performed test drive on these cars (except of incidents 6 and 9), then he agreed the price with the car owners and in purported payment, he then handed them his signed personal cheque in the agreed sum drawn on either his BEA or SCB account, or showed them that he had deposit the relevant sums into the bank account of the prosecution witnesses.  He then drove away the car together with the car registration documents and vehicle licences.  These cheques were later dishonoured.  Each of these prosecution witnesses confirmed that had they known that these cheques were dishonoured, they would not had handed over the cars and the car documents to the defendant.

4.  The amount of his dishonoured cheques were respectively $128,000 for Charge 1; $30,000 for each of Charge 3 and Charge 6; $35,500 for Charge 10; $40,000 for Charge 14; $35,000 for Charge 18; $42,000 for Charge 22; $37,000 for Charge 26 and $79,000 for Charge 32.

5.  These cars were later resold by defendant to others at: $70,000 (Charge 2); $10,000 (Charge 9); $11,000 (Charge 13); $23,000 (Charge 17); $21,140 (Charge 21); $14,500 (Charge 25); $18,000 (Charge 29), ie, at a substantial discount either on the same day or the day after (except for incidents 1, 8 and 9 where the dates of resale of these cars were unknown).  In each of the 9 incidents, the car owners were paid nothing.

6.  On 3 May 2018, defendant was arrested and the lost ID card of Yau Ching Hung (“Yau”) was found on him. Yau said he did not know the defendant, nor did he authorize the defendant to use the ID card.  He lost the ID card in July 2017. (Charge 30)

7.  Defendant in the video-recorded interview said that he picked up this ID card somewhere and he admitted using this ID card when he sold the car to Jetco Motors Trading Company.  This was confirmed by Jetco Motors Trading Company. (Charge 9)

8.  Police investigation showed that at all material times (for incidents 2 to 8), defendant did not possess any valid driving licence when he conducted the test drives, nor when he drove the cars away after the transactions. 

9.  Inquiries with the Transport Department confirmed his learner driving licence expired on 14 June 2017 and there was no application for formal driving licence.  Therefore, during all test drives or when he drove these cars away after the transactions, defendant was driving without a valid driving licence in Hong Kong. (Charges 4, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23 and 27)

10.  The respective insurance agents confirmed that the respective vehicle policies for the material vehicles would not cover accidents in which the driver did not hold a valid driving licence and therefore, during all test drives or when defendant drove those cars away after the transactions, defendant was driving without third party insurance. (Charges 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28)

11.  When defendant sold cars to Spotlighting Motors Limited on 29 March 2018, he verbally held himself out as Lam Tin Wong, holder of Hong Kong ID card No Z172446(1) and on 1 April 2018, as Lam Tin Wong, holder of Hong Kong ID card Z447182(1). (Charge 13 and Charge 17 respectively) 

12.  On 4 September 2018, defendant failed to attend court for hearing as appointed.  Inquiries showed that defendant was neither in police custody nor in CSD custody, nor admitted at any of the hospitals under the Hospital Authority.  On 23 February 2019, he was found by police, leading to his re-arrest.  In court, he explained that he was absent from court due to his need to take care of his wife and family.  The same was rejected by the court as reasonable cause for his absence in court hearing on 4 September 2018.  Defendant gave the same explanation in cautioned interview conducted by the police on 19 March 2019. (Charge 31)

Incident 10 (Charges 33 to 35)

13.  In June 2017, Piano Moving King Logistics Company Limited (“Piano”) hired defendant as a delivery man. 

14.  Between September 2017 and October 2017, defendant was asked to deliver pianos for clients, but he failed to return cash collected from clients to Piano and gave excuses.  He later did not even turn up for work completely.  Upon checking, the defendant had failed to return the sum of $22,193.60 on or about 23 September 2017, $4,114 on 24 September 2017 and $7,735 on 6 October 2017.

15.  When defendant was arrested for theft regarding monies not returned to Piano, he admitted under caution that he had spent all of these as his own personal expenses.

Criminal Record

16.  Defendant has 12 previous criminal records involving conviction of 44 charges, mostly fraud and obtaining property by deception or evasion of liability charges, between the years 2009 and 2018.

Mitigation

17.  Defendant was born in Hong Kong. 

18.  He is aged 38. 

19.  He had received education up to higher diploma in computer-related course. 

20.  He was a casual worker at time of arrest and he worked as an IT technician. 

21.  He was married in 2016 and has one son, aged 9.

22.  His wife suffered from metal problem since the year 2015 and was also diagnosed to have brain cancer.  It was said that she should have received an operation at the end of November 2020. 

23.  His son is now under the care of his parents-in-law under care protection order issued by the court. 

24.  Defendant’s parents both aged around 70, are retired persons, and living apart from defendant.  His younger brothers also live apart.

25.  As submitted by defence counsel, the defendant committed the offences because of overspending.  In order to earn quick money, he resorted to defraud people.  It was said that from the end of 2011 to October 2014, he spent his time in prison.  When he was discharged from prison, he was determined to turn a new leaf.  Yet because of his criminal record, he has difficulty in looking for a decent job and engaged in casual work. 

26.  In year 2015, his wife was found to suffer from mental problem and she kept demanding defendant for money for housekeeping matters.  Unable to meet his wife’s demand, defendant could not think of a better way but to go back to a fraudulent practice.  He had a severe financial problem.  On one occasion, he had to steal baby milk powder for his son in year 2018, as a result of which he was charged for shoplifting and was sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment.

27.  It was further submitted that during detention, the defendant had an opportunity of seeing a psychologist and realised that it was probably because of his mental problem that he kept committing crimes of fraud without self-control at which took place since 2018.  It is also said that defendant is extremely concerned not only of his wife’s life-threatening condition but also the lack of care of the son.  He urged this honourable court to temper justice with mercy and to pass the most lenient sentence, so that he could return to his family as soon as possible.

28.  Defence counsel also submitted that there is no sentencing guideline for the offence of fraud.  He referred this court to case of HKSAR v Wong Chun Hin, DCCC 265/2019, where the case of HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu, CACC 99/2006, was considered. 

29.  Defence counsel submitted that in the present case, so far as the 9 car owners was concerned, the total loss was less than $500,000 and these cases did not involve any breach of trust, and he therefore suggested that the appropriate sentence starting point after considering the totality principle would be around 2 to 2½ years.

30.  As for the 3 counts of theft charges, which involve a breach of trust element, considering the total loss of these 3 counts was $32,000 and making reference to Cheung Mee Kiu case, it is suggested that the appropriate sentencing starting point is less than 4 months.

31.  As for the possession of ID card relating to another person, the usually sentence, he submitted was one of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment.  It was suggested that as the offence was committed in connection with the 11 charges, this court should consider concurrent sentence with the sentence for the 11 charges.

32.  Coming to the failure to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, defence counsel said whilst the maximum sentence of which is 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine of any amount, this court should impose a sentence of a few months. 

33.  He also submitted that the defendant has a number of previous convictions for similar offences which can amount to an aggravating factor and this court should consider a nominal enhancement of the final sentence. 

34.  He also asked this court to consider the totality principle after making suggestion to the sentence for the various offences.

35.  He concluded that the total sentence should be around 24 months’ imprisonment, followed by enhancement of 3 months as defendant was persistent offender and that the final sentence should be 29 months, and then after the one-third sentencing discount by reason of his guilty plea, the sentence would be a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.

Discussion

1st charge

36.  A person is liable on conviction upon indictment for this charge to imprisonment for 14 years.  There is no tariff in sentencing or sentencing guideline for this offence and sentencing starting point in each case depends on the facts of the particular case. 

37.  As a result of the deceit of defendant, the victim here lost his car at the agreed value of $128,000. 

38.  Defence counsel refer this court to the case of Cheung Mee Kiu where the guideline for theft involving breach of trust for sums of less than $250,000 would attract a sentencing starting point of less than 2 years’ imprisonment.

39.  On the other hand, while strictly the car was not ‘stolen’ from its owner, the culpability of the defendant in this fraud case involving a car is no less than that, at least in my view, to a handler of stolen car.  The car was similarly taken from the car owner through deceit of the defendant.  The court had all along considered handling stolen cars as serious offences adopting a sentencing starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment even for defendants with a clear record and one who has committed the offence as an opportunist.[1] The value of the car in the sentencing exercise is not as significant. 

40.  In that case, the stolen car was valued at $158,000. The same was recovered and the defendant was a person of good character.  There was no evidence in the case indicating that the defendant did take part in stealing the car.  Defendant there was just an opportunistic handler and he was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after trial. 

41.  In the case of R v Tang Hing Wong, CACC 476/1994, the defendant pleaded guilty to handling stolen car. Court of Appeal commented that the total sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment is too lenient. Again, in the case of HKSAR v Fan Chi Wai, CACC 343/2015, defendant convicted after trial of handling stolen motor vehicle, a motorcycle, worth $40,000 with value inside the car totalling $45,000 was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and Court of Appeal refused the appeal for leave to appeal.

42.  In our case here, the defendant is the sole perpetrator of the crime.  He approached the car owner online and use a dishonoured cheque to obtain the vehicle.  The criminality of the defendant is obviously, in my view, no less than that of a handler for stolen vehicles. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the submissions, as well as the authorities aforesaid, this court now adopts 2 years and 5 months as the sentencing starting point.

43.  From the criminal record of the defendant, one can perceive him as a persistent re-offender of crimes of dishonesty, for which the starting point is further enhanced by 4 months to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.[2]

44.  Defendant committed the offence while he was on police bail.  This demonstrates serious disregard for the law and persistence in re-offending and would constitute another aggravating factor for which the sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 3 months to 3 years.[3] 

45.  This court has considered all mitigation submission by defence counsel, including but not limited to the medical reports, the documents for the child and mitigation letters from both the defendant and the volunteer of the religious body but finds the most valid mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea for which, for reasons to be explained later, despite the fact that defendant has jumped bail, he would be still given the full one-third sentencing discount.

46.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

2nd Charge

47.  The benefit to the defendant here is the sum of $70,000. The defendant dealt with the fruit of the deceit from the 1st charge. After making reference to the benefit to the defendant and the prejudice and/or substantial risk of prejudice to the victim, this court considers that the appropriate sentencing starting point in this case is 6 months’ imprisonment. 

48.  Again, the sentence is reduced to 4 months’ imprisonment by reason of his guilty plea.  The defendant committed this offence to dispose of the property from his commission of the 1st charge. Whilst this court considers that this offence is closely connected to the 1st charged offence, the further commission of this offence clearly adds to the culpability of the defendant in the 1st charge.  Accordingly, the court orders that 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge is to run consecutively to the sentence in the 1st charge and the rest of the sentence to run concurrent to the sentence in the 1st charge.

3rd charge

49.  The defendant adopts the same modus operandi as the 1st charged offence whilst committing this offence.  The car involved is worth $30,000.  For similar reasons, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

4th charge

50.  The defendant here performed test drive on vehicle registration number VA5019 whilst he did not possess any valid driving licence.  His learner driving licence had expired and he also drove the vehicle after the transaction.  A person convicted of this offence for the first time is liable to a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months.  

51.  From the record of the Transport Department, it clearly shows the defendant when he committed the offence knows without doubt that he never had a valid driving licence at the time.

52.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the risk posed to other road users and properties around when he was driving and having regard to the fact that this is the defendant’s first conviction, the sentencing starting point is 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge and the same is reduced to 40 days’ imprisonment by reason of the defendant’s guilty plea.

5th charge

53.  A person convicted of this offence is liable to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months.  This is the defendant’s first conviction of the offence.  The sentencing starting point is 3 months’ imprisonment.  By reason of his guilty plea, he is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, the same to be served concurrently with the sentence in the 4th charge. 

54.  He shall also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for 18 months from the date of conviction.

6th charge

55.  Again, the defendant adopted the same modus operandi as the 1st charged offence while committing the offence.  The car here is worth $30,000.  For similar reasons, he is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

7th charge

56.  The defendant conducted a test drive on TM3042 on 16 March 2018.  He also drove the car away after this transaction.  For reasons as in the 4th charge, he is sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

8th charge

57.  For the same reasons as the 5th charge, he is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge.  The same is to be served wholly concurrent with the sentence in the 7th charge. 

58.  A similar disqualification order as in the 5th charge.

9th charge

59.  The benefit to the defendant is the sum of $10,000.  For the same reasons as the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for this charge of which 2 months’ sentence is to be served consecutive to the sentence in the 6th charge.  The rest of the sentence is to be served concurrent to the sentence in the 6th charge.

10th charge

60.  The car here is worth $35,500.  For the same reasons as the 1st charge, he is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

11th charge

61.  The defendant here conducted a test drive on the vehicle VJ5314 before the transaction and drove the car away after the transaction.  For similar reasons as the 4th charge, he is sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

12th charge

62.  Again, for similar reasons as in the 5th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge, sentence to be served wholly concurrent to the sentence in the 11th charge. 

63.  Similar disqualification order as the 5th charge.

13th charge

64.  Here the benefit to the defendant is $11,000. For same reasons as the 2nd charge, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment for this charge of which 2 months’ imprisonment for the offence is run consecutive to the sentence in the 10th charge and the rest of the sentence to run concurrent to the sentence in the 10th charge.

14th charge

65.  The car here is worth $40,000.  For the same reasons as in the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

15th charge

66.  For similar reasons as in the 4th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

16th charge

67.  For similar reasons as in the 5th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge which shall run concurrent to the sentence in the 15th charge. 

68.  Similar disqualification order as in the 5th charge.

17th charge

69.  The benefit to the defendant is $23,000.  For similar reasons as the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment of which 2 months’ imprisonment is to be served consecutive to the sentence in the 14th charge, the rest is to run concurrent to the sentence in the 14th charge.

18th charge

70.  The car is worth $35,000.  For similar reasons as the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge. 

19th charge

71.  For similar reasons as the 4th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge. 

20th charge

72.  For similar reasons as the 5th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge.  The same shall run concurrent to the sentence in the 19th charge.

73.  Similar disqualification order as in the 5th charge.

21st charge

74.  For similar reasons as the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment of which 2 months’ imprisonment is to be served consecutive to the sentence in the 18th charge. The rest of the sentence is to run concurrent to the sentence in the 18th charge.

22nd charge

75.  For similar reasons as the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge. 

23rd charge

76.  The defendant performed a test drive on TX3529 before the transaction and also drove the car away after the transaction.  For similar reasons as the 4th charge, he is sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

24th charge

77.  For similar reasons as in the 5th charge the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for the charge. 

78.  The same is to run wholly concurrent to the sentence for the 23rd charge.  He is also similarly disqualified as in the 5th charge.

25th charge

79.  The benefit to the defendant is the sum of $14,500.  For similar reasons as to the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for this charge of which 2 months’ of the sentence is to be served consecutive to the sentence in the 22nd charge.  The rest of the sentence is to be served concurrent to the sentence in the 22nd charge.

26th charge

80.  The agreed price for the car is $37,000.  For the same reason as in the 1st charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

27th charge

81.  Again, the defendant performed a test drive on vehicle registration number UW6603.  He also drove the car away after the transaction.  The defendant is similarly sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

28th charge

82.  For the same reason as the 5th charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for this charge, the sentence of which is to run concurrent to the sentence for the 27th charge.

29th charge

83.  The benefit to the defendant here is the sum of $18,000.  For reasons similar to the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for this charge of which 2 months’ sentence is to run consecutive to the sentence in the 26th charge, the rest to run concurrent to the sentence in the 26th charge.

30th charge

84.  The defendant was found in possession of a Hong Kong ID card which belongs to Yau Ching Hung.  The defendant admitted under caution in the video-recorded interview that he approached prosecution witness of Jetco Motors, impersonating as Yau when he committed the Charge 9 offence on 16 March 2018.  Obviously, he did use this ID card belonging to Yau to conceal his identity.  He was still in possession of the ID card when he was intercepted by police in the street on 3 May 2018, ie, 47 days later when he was arrested.

85.  Upon guilty plea of the defendant, this court now sentences the defendant to 12 months’ imprisonment for this charge.[4]

31st charge

86.  A person convicted of this charge upon indictment is liable to a fine of any amount and imprisonment for 12 months. Again, there is no sentence tariff for this offence.  In the case of HKSAR v Leung Yau Ming, Victor[5], the court imposed 1 month imprisonment on a defendant who surrendered himself and had a guilty plea.

87.  In the case of HKSAR v Wong Chi Hung, CACC 300/2010, the defendant had absconded for one month and the Court of Appeal considered that 3 months’ imprisonment is the appropriate sentence and the starting point. 

88.  The defendant here was arrested in the street on 3 May 2019, ie, 8 months after he failed to surrender himself to custody as had been appointed by the court.  This court would adopt similarly 3 months’ imprisonment as the sentence starting point, the same is reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment by reason of his guilty plea.

32nd charge

89.  The car here is valued at $79,000.  For the same reason as in Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

33rd charge to 35th charge

90.  The defendant here stole money from his employer, Piano.  There was a breach of trust and the sum involved was $22,193.60, $4,114 and $7,735.  

91.  The respective charges were committed on 23 September 2017, 24 September 2017 and 6 October 2017, respectively. 

92.  The defendant admitted he had used up all these moneys. 

93.  An immediate custodial sentence is the norm and in the absence of exceptional circumstances for a case of theft involving breach of trust, according to the sentencing starting point guideline in Cheung Mee Kiu case, when the amount involved is less than $250,000, the sentencing starting point should be less than 24 months’ imprisonment.

94.  For each of these offences, this court adopts a sentencing starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment.

95.  The defendant’s numerous previous convictions all relating to dishonesty, one of which is a theft conviction dating back to the year 2012, this court is not going to enhance the sentencing starting point by reason of the record.

96.  Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to 4 months’ imprisonment by reason of his guilty plea.  He is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for each of these charges.  

97.  These theft charges were all committed within a short period of time with the same victim employer.  The total money involved was $34,042.60.  Considering the total culpability of the defendant, the total just and fair sentence for the three charges would remain at 4 months’ imprisonment. 

98.  Accordingly, the sentence for the 34th and the 35th charge is to run wholly concurrent to the sentence in the 33rd charge.

Overall sentence

99.  Now coming to consider totality principle in relation to 16 fraud charges.  They relate to 9 incidents whereby the defendant defrauded 16 victims, 9 of which are car owners who posted online to sell their respective cars and 6 car dealers who bought those cars.

100.  The defendant is clearly a persistent fraudster preying on car sellers online.  Most of these cars were re-sold either on the same day or shortly after the date of purchase.  He is the sole perpetrator of the crime.  The crime is planned, and he carried out those offences with experience and the defendant committed incident 2 to incident 8 involving 13 fraud charges, ie, Charges 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 29, within the period from 14 March 2018 to 23 April 2018. 

101.  He committed incident 1 and incident 9 fraud charges, ie, Charges 1, 2 and 32, on 20 March 2017 and 12 March 2017.  These were well planned. 

102.  Considering the overall culpability of the defendant in these fraud charges, this court considers that a just and proportionate sentence would be a total of 42 months’ imprisonment after plea.

103.  Accordingly, the total sentence for the 1st and 2nd charge shall remain at 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, and 2 months for the sentence of 3rd charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge.  The rest of the sentence shall run concurrent to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge.  Likewise, 2 months of the sentence for the 6th and 9th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

104.  2 months of the sentence for the 10th and 13th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

105.  2 months of the sentence for the 14th and 17th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

106.  2 months of the sentence for the 18th and 21st charge is to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent.

107.  2 months of the sentence for the 22nd and 25th charge are to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent.

108.  2 months of the sentence for the 26th and 29th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest of the sentence to run concurrent.  

109.  2 months of the sentence for the 32nd charge is to run consecutive to the sentence in the 1st and 2nd charge, the rest to run concurrent.

110.  Total sentence for the fraud charges is, therefore, 42 months’ imprisonment.

111.  Now coming to the sentence for the offences for driving without a valid driving licence and driving without a valid third party insurance. 

112.  Considering the culpability of the defendant for these charges, the just and proportionate sentence should be 2 months and 120 days.  The sentence for the 4th and 5th charge shall remain at 2 months’ imprisonment. 

113.  As for the sentence for the 7th and 8th charge, 20 days of the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence for the 4th and 5th charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

114.  Likewise, 20 days of the sentence for the 11th and 12th charge is to run consecutive to the sentence in the 4th and 5th charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

115.  20 days of the sentence for the 15th and 16th charge is to run consecutive to the sentence for the 4th and 5th charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

116.  20 days of the sentence for the 19th and 20th charge is to run consecutive to the sentence for the 4th and 5th charge, the rest of the sentence to run concurrent. 

117.  20 days of the sentence for the 23rd and 24th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 4th and 5th charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

118.  20 days of the sentence for the 27th and 28th charge to run consecutive to the sentence in the 4th and 5th charge, the rest to run concurrent. 

119.  So the total sentence will remain at 2 months and 120 days’ imprisonment for these charges.

120.  According to the court record, the defendant failed to appear in court on 4 September 2018 as appointed.  At that time, the present Charges 1 to 31 were already laid against him.  It meant, therefore, that the defendant’s present guilty plea would not be considered a timely guilty plea.[6]

121.  The defendant had absconded for 8 months and was re-arrested in the street.  Nevertheless, this court would exercise its discretion and allow the defendant, still, the one-third sentencing discount on his own guilty plea. 

122.  Now coming to the 31st charge.  The nature of the 31st charge is of a totally different, separate and distinct nature to the other offences or the other charges. 

123.  The court has considered the overall culpability of the defendant and totality principle and still finds that it is appropriate for this court to make the sentence for the 31st charge to run wholly consecutive to the sentence for the other charges.[7]

124.  As for the sentence for the 30th charge, although, the defendant did use the same in commission of the 9th charged offence, nevertheless, this court had not considered the use of the ID card in connection with the sentencing exercise of that offence, ie, the 9th charged offence.  Furthermore, when the police arrested him in the street on 3 May 2018, the defendant still had this ID card on him.  It is clear that the defendant did not abandon this ID card after use on 16 March 2018 and possibly still finds the same useful. 

125.  The nature of this offence, again, is totally separate and distinct from the other offences.  Having considered the circumstances of the case, the totality principle and the defendant’s overall criminality in this case, this court would order that 6 months of the sentence for this charge is to run consecutive to the sentence in the other charges, the rest of the sentence to run concurrent to the sentence in the other charges.

126.  The total sentence for the defendant in this case is, therefore, 56 months and 120 days’ imprisonment.  This court considers that this sentence is a fair and proportionate sentence on the defendant having regard to his overall culpability in the case and all disqualification orders issued in this case is to run wholly concurrent to each other.