COURT: This is a robbery case with a total of four defendants. They are Chan Siu-tat (D1), Leung Yuk-yin (D2), Lai King-on (D3) and Yeung Chun-ming (D4). D1, D2 and D4 were jointly charged with two counts of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charges 1 and 2). D1 was, in addition, charged with two counts of using an identity card belonging to another person, contrary to section 7A(1A) of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap 177 (Charges 3 and 4). D3 was charged with one count of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charge 5).
All the defendants pleaded guilty to all the charges they faced during the committal proceedings at the magistracy and were transferred to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
The Facts, Robbery, Charges 1 and 2 (against D1, D2 and D4 only)
Madam So Mei-yan is a single mother, an Instagram or Facebook KOL. At the material time, she rented 18A, Tower 2, One West Kowloon, 873 Lai Chi Kok Road, Kowloon, and lived with her baby son and her maid, Baristo Benigna Neseo.
On 24 November 2020, at around 1115 hours, when Madam So, her baby boy and her maid were all at home, the doorbell rang and the maid answered the door. Madam So heard some noise outside and her maid screamed. Madam So then saw three Chinese males, that is D1, D2 and D4, all wearing dark coloured caps, gloves and black facemasks. D1 and D4 were each holding a 15-centimetre-long fruit knife, whereas D2 was holding a 30-centimetire-long rod.
Madam So and her maid were tied up by duct tape. Both of them and the baby boy were pushed into the guest bedroom. D4 told them in Punti that the baby would not be hurt if they cooperated.
As the room door was left open, Madam So was able to see the robbers ransacking her master bedroom for around 10 minutes after one of them got a suitcase from the storeroom. D1 asked Madam So where she kept her cash, to which she answered she did not keep cash at home. The robbers then left the master bedroom with the suitcase and went to the living room. Madam So then heard the bang sound of the door. Madam So and her maid subsequently untied themselves and reported the case to the police.
Madam So claimed that during the robbery her abdomen and back was hit by one of the robbers. All of them suffered no serious injury except that Madam So suffered from redness on her wrists. She also claimed that her baby had redness on the left cheek. The maid said that when the robbers entered the flat, one of them covered her eyes and mouth with bare hands. All of them refused to receive any medical treatment.
Madam So and her maid confirmed that the total value of all their property taken was HK$11,722,720. Madam So lost a suitcase, 19 handbags, 78 pieces of watches and jewelleries, a mobile phone, a notebook computer, a fur coat, a few other bags and some miscellaneous items. The maid lost a mobile phone and 3,000 cash (Charges 1 and 2).
Upon police investigations, there were CCTV footages showing that on 24 November 2020, that is the date of the robbery:
(a) At 1055 hours, D1, D2 and D4 went to Tower 1 of that One West Kowloon where there was the observation flat (see paragraph 18 below);
(b) At 1110 hours, D1, D2 and D4 entered Madam So’s building at Tower 2;
(c) At 1133 hours, D2 and D4 left Madam So’s flat on the 18th floor with a red suitcase. That red suitcase was later recovered in the hillside on Tai Mo Shan according to the respective admissions of D1 and D4 after their arrest;
(d) At 1136 hours, D1 left the 12th floor of Madam So’s building.
On 17 December 2020, police officers arrived at D1’s residence (in which his wife and his mother also resided), but a female refused to open the door. Police officers broke into the flat with a search warrant. After a house search for over two hours, D1 was found to have hidden under his mother’s bed in the bedroom.
Police had conducted house search in the bedroom of D1 and his wife and recovered three designer handbags, one computer bag, one fur coat and some documents bearing Madam So’s name, which were subsequently confirmed and identified by Madam So to be stolen items from the robbery.
DPC9690 arrested D1, who, under caution, said that the stolen properties, including those handbags recovered at his place of abode, was picked up somewhere at Tai Mo Shan.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, D1 under caution repeated his version that he picked up those stolen items found at his home at Tai Mo Shan on 16 December 2020 and took them home without using them. D1 denied any knowledge of the tenancy agreement of the observation flat for the robbery in Tower 1 of One West Kowloon (see paragraph 18 below) and other related persons in this case. He denied having been to One West Kowloon. He remained silent when he was asked about the three Octopus cards registered under the observation flat and all the CCTV captures or the screen captures shown to him.
On 17 December 2020, DPC16242 arrested D2. D2, under caution, admitted that he was responsible for guarding Madam So, the maid and the baby boy. He claimed that a male called ‘Tai Mo’ asked him to take part in the robbery in which some handbags were stolen.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, D2 admitted that in November 2020 he came across a male named Tai Mo who offered to hire him for a robbery with a reward of $2,000 in cash. On 24 November 2020, D2 met up with Tai Mo and went to One West Kowloon. The two entered a vacant flat and met up with another person named ‘Kwong Tau’. They then went to the target flat via the podium between the buildings. When the domestic helper answered the door, they got into the flat. D2 pushed the victims into the room, asked them not to make any noise and he stood outside the room. When he was told to leave, he picked up a backpack from the living room and left with Tai Mo who carried the suitcase. The two then got on a taxi and got off near Tsuen Wan MTR station where D2 gave the backpack to Tai Mo and left. D2 denied that he had covered the victims’ mouths or tied them up with duct tape. He denied he had threatened them with a knife. D2 positively identified himself, Kwong Tau and Tai Mo in the CCTV captures shown to him.
On 15 July 2021, D4 was arrested during a police raid in Tuen Mun. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he admitted that he was acquainted with D1 in 2012. A few days before 24 November 2020, D1 told D4 that they would have a burglary job to do a few days later and a million-dollar reward would be distributed.
D1 rented a flat, that is the observation flat, in One West Kowloon and D4 met D1 in that flat. D4 once saw a telescope near the window of the observation flat and D1 told him that he would use the telescope to view the opposite flat. D1 told D4 that there were two females and a baby in that flat. The action time would be at 11 o’clock.
On 24 November 2020, D4 and D2 arrived at the ground floor of One West Kowloon and were picked up by D1. D4 would be responsible for packing the stolen property into a suitcase. D1 led D2 and D4 to the victim’s flat. Before entering, D1 passed a knife to D4. D1 knocked on the door, the domestic helper opened the door. D2 and D4 closed the curtain of the flat after entering. D1 tied up the victims and pushed them into a room. D2 guarded them. D1 then ransacked the flat and passed the stolen items to D4 to place into the suitcase and the backpack. D1 asked Madam So where she stored the cash and she said she did not have cash. D1 punched her stomach twice and D4 asked him to stop. Later, D1 found $3,000 cash in Madam So’s wallet and $8,000 cash in the domestic helper’s wallet. The whole robbery lasted for about 10 minutes. After they had fled, D4 passed the suitcase and the backpack to D1.
In another video-recorded interview, D4 admitted that he had used a knife to threaten Madam So and her maid. He said D1 took the tape out from his backpack and used it to tie up the victims. In relation to the telescope seized in the observation flat, D4 stated that it belonged to D1 and was used to observe Madam So’s flat. In relation to the red suitcase seized in Tai Mo Shan, D4 stated that it belonged to Madam So. On the date of robbery, D1 took some bags, watches and groceries from Madam So’s room and passed them to D4. D4 placed them inside that red suitcase. Then D1 took the suitcase away. In relation to the stolen items seized and recovered by police from the Redbox Storage (regarding the handling charge against D3 to be described in the subsequent paragraphs) and the stolen items recovered by the police from D1’s residence, D4 stated that they belonged to Madam So.
Using a Hong Kong ID card belonging to another (Charges 3 and 4 against D1 only)
It was confirmed from the estate agents of Hong Kong Property that between 1 to 4 November 2020 D1 held himself out as a Mr Au with a Hong Kong Identity Card Number P886754(6) in the name of Au Cheung-woon (which subsequently confirmed to be a lost ID card) and expressed interest to rent a flat in the said One West Kowloon, that is the estate where Madam So’s flat was in. On 7 November 2020, D1 signed the tenancy agreement to rent a flat at 25B, Tower 1 of One West Kowloon and that flat had been used as an observation flat for the said robbery of Madam So’s flat (Charge 3).
On 20 November 2020, D1 contacted ONTOCAR Services Company Limited and expressed interest to rent a car. Later, he attended the car company office, showed the said lost ID card of Mr Au and signed a car rental form (Charge 4).
Handling stolen goods (Charge 5 against D3 only)
On 25 November 2020, at around 1345 hours, D3 and another male went to a storage place called 345 Storage in Tuen Mun. D3 signed a licence agreement and paid for three months’ rental of the storage space, serial number K1130.
On 26 November 2020, D3 registered online for another storage space in Redbox Storage in Tuen Mun. He attended the branch at around 1200 hours and rented a storage space, serial number 8152. D3 then left the branch for buying a padlock and later locked up the storage space by his own padlock.
Police investigations revealed certain call records between the respective mobile phones of D1 and D3 between 28 October 2019 and 8 December 2020.
Upon police investigations, there were CCTV footages showing:
(a) On 7 November 2020, D1 and D3 attended D3’s residence in Tuen Mun;
(b) On 24 November 2020, at 1507 hours, D3 returned to his home in Tuen Mun with a large plastic box. The plastic box contained stolen bags later recovered from the space rented by D3 in Redbox Storage;
(c) On 25 November 2020, at 1300 hours, D3 left home with a large plastic box, and at 1347 hours, D1 and D3 stored the said plastic box in his space in 345 Storage rented by D3;
(d) On 26 November 2020, at 1146 hours, D3 moved the plastic box from 345 Storage to Redbox Storage. The plastic box contained the stolen bags later recovered from Redbox Storage.
On 17 December 2020, D3 was arrested and denied the offence under caution and remained silent in the subsequent video-recorded interview.
After arrest, D3 was brought to Redbox Storage in Tuen Mun. The padlock of his storage space, serial number 8152, was broken by the police in the presence of D3. From a large plastic box inside, the police found 13 designer handbags and a clothing bag, all subsequently confirmed by Madam So to be her stolen items.
Defendants’ Background
D1
D1 was born in 1981, is now 43 years old, married but currently separated. He was educated up to Primary 6 and was working as a construction worker earning about $20,000 a month. He has 10 previous convictions, most were dangerous drugs related and none involved dishonesty.
D2
D2 was born in 1981, is now 43 years old, divorced with two 19-year-old daughters. He was educated up to Secondary 3 and was working as a decoration worker earning about $20,000 a month. He has seven previous convictions, all but one were dangerous drugs related and none involved dishonesty.
D3
D3 was born in 1981 and is now 43 years old, married with three children aged 11, 9 and 7 years old. He was educated up to Secondary 3 and was working as a private driver earning about $18,000 a month. He has 20 previous convictions, including three robberies, three burglaries and one theft. The last conviction involving dishonesty, namely, those three robberies, entered in 2006 where he was sentenced to a total of 4½ years’ imprisonment.
D4
D4 was born in 1976 and is now 48 years old, divorced in 2012, with a son of 22 years old. He is currently in a steady relationship with a woman and a son and a daughter. He was educated up to secondary 1 and was working as a construction site worker earning about $13,000 a month. He has a total of 19 previous convictions, including ten dangerous drugs related convictions and eight burglaries. The last conviction involving dishonesty, namely, a burglary entered in 1998, where he was sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment.
Mitigation
D1 and D2
Mr Ho for D1 and D2 submitted a written mitigation. Apart from the tariff case for robbery, Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610, the defence submitted four other cases of robberies heard in the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance. They are HKSAR v Lo Chai Fat (transliteration), HCCC 248/2016; AG v Chan Fat Keung [1998] 1 HKLR 570; HKSAR v Hau Kin, CACC 99/2000; and HKSAR v Wang Wei, CACC 446/2009, where starting points ranging from 8 to 9 years for a single count of robbery were adopted.
For the identity card offences against D1 only, the defence submitted the case of HKSAR v Li Chang Li [2005] 1 HKLRD 864 where it was stated the sentence after plea for actual display or use of a forged ID card or an identity card of another to conceal one’s real identity should be 15 months’ imprisonment.
It was submitted as mitigation that D1 committed the offences out of sheer desperation and foolishness for helping his sister having ovarian cancer to pay for medical treatment. It was submitted that through D1’s mitigation letter that he now felt deep remorse and wished to offer apology to the victims. D1 had been cooperative with the authorities, though he denied the offences under caution, and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. It was fortunate that no one was injured, the duration of the robbery was only about 10 minutes and that a significant amount of stolen items had been recovered. There was no objective evidence to show that there was a mastermind behind the robbery. It was also submitted that the two counts of robbery, which stemmed from the same case, and that the two counts of identity card offences, which were committed in furtherance of the same robberies, concurrent sentences for all four counts should be ordered.
It was submitted on D2’s behalf that he committed these offences of robberies because he was blinded by his hopes for a better future for his daughters. He now deeply regretted and apologised to the victims in his mitigation letter. As admitted in his cautioned statement and video-recorded interview, his role in the robbery was one of a lookout, which was relatively minor, and that he had also pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The court is invited to pass concurrent sentences for the two robbery offences.
By submitting the case of HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing, CACC 243/2012, the court was invited to consider the fact that now it had been almost 4 years since the commission of the offences on 24 November 2020. Though that delay was not caused by any parties, but the pandemic and the sister case of HCCC 45/2022, these defendants had inevitably suffered from considerable stress and uncertainty. The court was therefore invited to apportion some allowance for discount by reason of that delay.
D3
Ms Lau also submitted a written mitigation for D3. The defence accepted that there were no sentencing guidelines for handling stolen goods but it was submitted that, according to HKSAR v Chan Wing Kwan and Anor, CACC 121/1985, the normal range should be 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment. It was also submitted that only two aggravating factors suggested by the authority HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wing [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 were of relevance in this case, namely the particular seriousness of the primary offence and the fact that the goods were proceeds of a domestic burglary.
It was submitted that although D3 was aware that the property in this case did not belong to D1, a long-time friend of his, he did not know from whether the property came from and he foolishly agreed to assist in the storage. Although D3 assisted in the transfer of the stolen goods shortly after the robbery, there was no evidence that D3 knew in advance of it. It was submitted that D3 did not receive any benefits and he did not further handle the stolen goods following their transfer to his storage space.
D3 claimed that he came from a grassroots background and did not know the actual value of those luxury stolen goods handled by him. Even for the robbery itself, it was submitted that it fell on the less serious end of the spectrum, the handling by D3 was brief and in no way sophisticated. Though D3 had a number of previous convictions, he had started to change his way since 2013 when he started his own family. He joined and regularly took part in voluntary work.
It was submitted that D3 had served a full 17 months in prison since his date of arrest on 17 November 2020 until 6 May 2022 when he was granted bail. The court was invited to take into account the COVID outbreak led to the re-fixing of this case and the fact that all defendants had to endure a wait for almost 4 years to receive their sentences. It was suggested that if the court was minded to use a starting point of 40.5 months’ imprisonment, then after the guilty plea discount and remission, it would be very likely that D3 could have an immediate release. The defence therefore prayed for the court to impose a sentence which would allow D3 to return to his family as soon as possible.
D4
Mr So also submitted a written mitigation for D4. The defence first of all submitted that D4 pleaded guilty at the committal proceedings. Apart from submitting the above authorities, Mo Kwong Sang, Chan Fat Keung and Lo Chai Fat (transliteration) as counsel for D1 and D2 did, counsel on behalf of D4 submitted two more sentencing cases for robbery which were heard in the Court of First Instance, the HKSAR v Tai Wan Hoi [2021] HKCFI 3040 and HKSAR v Leung Choi Lung [2011] HKCFI 1981, where in these two cases starting points of 7 and 8 years were adopted.
It was submitted that D4 committed these offences under huge financial pressure and that he now fully understood, and that he was wrong and promised to reform. D4 submitted a mitigation letter to express his deep remorse and his faith in Christianity which he had found during custody.
The defence submitted that no one was injured in the robbery and the redness of the victims as claimed was not supported by any medical evidence. The duration of the robbery was only around 10 minutes and that most of the stolen goods had been recovered.
Counsel for D3 also submitted on the issue of delay and asked for concurrent sentences in a similar way as other defence counsel did.
Sentence
I first deal with Charges 1 and 2, the two robberies which were carried out by D1, D2 and D4 at the same time in respect of Madam So and her maid at her residence on 24 November 2020.
As rightly accepted by parties, the tariff case is Mo Kwong Sang where the Court of Appeal set down the relevant sentencing guidelines as follows:
Paragraph 12:
“We suggest that, in future, the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to the victim should normally be five years.”
Paragraph 13:
“If such a robbery also involves an invasion of private premises (which includes domestic and business premises and the common parts of premises such as lifts and staircases) we suggest that a sentence of six years would be appropriate.”
Paragraph 14:
“If any physical violence, which includes tying them up, is used on any of the victims, we suggest that a sentence of seven years should be considered.”
Paragraph 15:
“These suggested sentences should be increased if there are other aggravating factors. Among these, though the list is not exhaustive, are invasion of domestic premises during the night; the presence of more than one person in the group of robbers; threats made to victims; ill-treatment of elderly persons and children; and a multiplicity of offences of a similar kind.”
In the circumstances of this case where it was clear and unequivocal facts, those admitted by the parties, that this was an armed robbery involving an invasion of private premises and tying up of the victims, the starting point should be at least 7 years.
Moreover, there are other aggravating factors here which must not be overlooked, but should be reflected in the sentence as required by Mo Kwong Sang. First, it was a robbery committed by three male defendants each wearing facemasks and carrying a knife or a rod. Second, regardless of whether there was in fact redness caused to Madam So and/or her baby boy in the absence of medical evidence as they refused medical treatment, the whole circumstances must have been extremely frightening, if not traumatic, to Madam So and her maid, in particular when there was a baby boy and threat had been uttered to hurt him unless they cooperated. Third, a very substantial amount of goods worth over $11 million had been taken, although part of them had been recovered. Fourth, substantial degree of planning had been done as an observation flat has been rented and used to observe the victim’s flat before the actual execution of the robbery scheme.
I have taken into account all of those circumstances and I am of the view that a starting point for each of Charges 1 and 2 should not be anything less than 8½ years’ imprisonment. I adopt that as an initial starting point.
Sentences for D1
I first deal with D1. For D1, even assuming in the absence of clear evidence to prove that he was the mastermind or ringleader of the robbers’ gang, he apparently had taken a more significant role for having rented the observation flat, not to mention that he had used an identity card belonging to another to conceal his identity to rent that observation flat, and on a different occasion to hire a car. As said above, each of those identity card offences, that is Charges 3 and 4, should attract a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment after plea according to the said case of Li Chang Li.
For Charges 1 and 2, the two robbery offences, for the above reasons, I enhance the said initial starting point of 8½ years by 1 year and adopt a starting point of 9½ years’ imprisonment for D1. I reduce it by one-third to reflect D1’s timely pleas and pass a sentence of 76 months, that is 6 years and 4 months, for each of Charges 1 and 2 for D1.
For Charges 3 and 4, the two identity card offences, I pass a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for each of them for D1.
In addition to the application of the totality principle, I have already bundled up the Charges 1 to 4 and looked at the overall picture when considering the individual sentences. I therefore order the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 to run concurrently and the total sentence for D1 should be 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
For the record, I have considered and I am not convinced that any additional discount should be given to any of these defendants as a matter of discretion for the alleged delay as claimed by all defence counsel. There is nothing, or at least insufficient proof to indicate that the lapse of 3 years and 9 months since the date of offence was at the fault of the police or the prosecution, and that any of the defendants was under any “uncertain suspense” or any reasonable expectation that he would not be charged or that any of them had made progress towards rehabilitation, or other circumstances favourable to any of them had emerged as suggested in the above case of Chiu Chi Wing (see paragraph 37 of that judgment).
Also, for the record, I have considered the background of all the defendants, which, in my view, was similar, namely basically middle-aged males with criminal records and committing these offences for financial reason. I do not consider any of their individual personal circumstances amount to any substantial mitigation. The only mitigation in this case, in my view, was their timely guilty pleas for which I would give the full one-third discount.
Sentences for D2 and D4
I now proceed to deal with D2 and D4 for the two robbery offences under Charges 1 and 2.
Their roles and involvement were similar and should receive the same treatment. I adopt a said initial starting point of 8½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point and reduce it by one-third for their timely guilty pleas. For each of Charges 1 and 2, I pass the sentence of 68 months, that is 5 years and 8 months for each of D2 and D4. For the above reasons, I order these sentences to run concurrently and the total sentence for each of D2 and D4 should be 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence for D3
I now move on to deal with D3 for a different offence of handling stolen goods which involved 13 handbags and a clothing bag under Charge 5.
Unlike robbery or burglary, there are no specific sentencing guidelines for handling stolen goods. The reason is that the circumstances under which a ‘handling’ offence is committed can vary so much that it is inappropriate to set down any sentencing guidelines, sentences in other cases of this kind are not necessarily of any directive use, the sentencing judge must pass an appropriate sentence according to the individual circumstances (see HKSAR v Yau Pak Chun, CACC 211/2006, unreported, at paragraph 14 of the judgment).
Nevertheless, in the said case of Cheng Chi Wai where the nine aggravating factors mentioned in an English authority, R v Bernard Webbe & Others [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 22, had been discussed, they included:
(1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence;
(2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence;
(3) High value of the goods;
(4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a domestic burglary;
(5) Sophistication in relation to the handling;
(6) A high level of profit made or expected by the handler;
(7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for stolen goods;
(8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler over others; and
(9) Commission of an offence while on bail.
Counsel for D3 submitted that only the said items (2) and (4), that is particular seriousness in the primary offence and the fact that the goods were proceeds of a domestic burglary (to be accurate, should be robbery committed in domestic premises here which should be more serious), are of relevance in this case. That must be the case.
But in relation to those two aggravating factors accepted by the defence, I am of the view that the said items of (1), (3) and (6), that is the closeness of the handler to the primary offence, high value of the goods and the high level of profit expected by the handler, even if not directly applicable, are relevant and should be considered.
Regarding the closeness of the handler to the primary offence, as disclosed in the facts admitted, the robbery in question took place at around 1115 hours on 24 November 2020. As captured by CCTV footages, D3, at 1507 hours on the very same day, that is less than four hours, was seen returning to his home in Tuen Mun with a large plastic box which was subsequently found to contain the stolen bags recovered from the space rented by him in Redbox Storage.
CCTV footages also captured on the very next day, on 25 November 2020, at 1300 hours, D3 left home with the said plastic box, and at 1347 hours D1 and D3 store it in the space in 345 Storage rented by D3. One day after, on 26 November 2020, at 1146 hours, D3 alone moved the said plastic box from 345 Storage to Redbox Storage (see paragraphs 3 and 19 of the Summary of Facts).
In summary, D3 had already started handling the stolen goods just about four hours after the robbery and kept handling them the next day and the day after by changing the places of storage.
I did not lose sight of the fact that there were call records between the respective mobile phones of D1 and D3 between 28 October 2019 and 8 December 2020, and that D1 and D3 were captured by CCTV that they went to D3’s residence on 7 November 2020, which happened to be the same day when D1 rented the observation flat for the robbery in question (see paragraphs 9, 13 and 18 of the Summary of Facts).
Regarding the high value of the stolen goods and the high level of profit expected by the handler, I noted that most of the stolen goods eventually recovered from the storage space rented by D3 and identified by Madam So were all designer handbags (see paragraph 23 of the Summary of Facts). They were all internationally renowned brands like Hermes, Chanel, Gucci, LV, etc, which must be of high value, and D3, even from grassroots as claimed by his counsel, must know or believe that such a large number of items would be worth a significant amount of money.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point for Charge 5 should be one of 4 years’ imprisonment. I reduce it by one-third to reflect D3’s timely plea and sentence D3 to 32 months, that is 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment for Charge 5.
Conclusion
For each of Charge 1 and Charge 2, I sentence D1 to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, and each of D2 and D4 to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
For each of Charge 3 and Charge 4, I sentence D1 to 15 months’ imprisonment.
All sentences under Charges 1 to 4 should run concurrently. D1 should be imprisoned for 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment in total, whereas D2 and D4 should each be imprisoned for 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
For Charge 5, I sentence D3 to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.