HKSAR v. LO WING PING

DCCC 1401/2024

[2026] HKDC 50

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1401 OF 2024

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  Before me, Ms Lo faces a Charge Sheet containing 9 charges of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Ms Lo pleaded guilty to Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 (total 8 charges) but not guilty to Charge 7.

3.  Prosecution asked that Charge 7 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  Upon Ms Lo’s conviction of those 8 charges, I so ordered.

4.  Particulars of Charges 1 to 6, and Charge 9, are that Ms Lo, between A and B, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to V that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve E, and with intent to defraud, induced V to commit acts or a series of acts, namely making a loan/loans in F Hong Kong currency to Ms Lo, which resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to V.

5.  For Charge 1, A is a day unknown in April 2014; B is 15 July 2016; V is Ko Fong Mui; E is problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $490,000.

6.  For Charge 2, A is on or about 16 July 2014; B is 23 January 2016; V is So Sze Man; E is urgent problems and problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $50,000.

7.  For Charge 3, A is 23 July 2014; B is 23 January 2016; V is Chan Hoi Lun; E is problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $60,000.

8.  For Charge 4, A is 9 August 2014; B is 19 March 2016; V is Chan Po Na; E is problems encountered by her family and her brother’s company; F is the total sum of $85,000.

9.  For Charge 5, A is on or about 22 June 2016; B is 24 June 2016; V is Chan Siu Hung, Susan; E is problems encountered by her brother’s company; F is the sum of $300,000.

10.  For Charge 6, A is on or about 15 August 2016; B is 16 August 2016; V is Lau Chi Hung; E is family problems; F is the sum of $250,000.

11.  For Charge 9, A is on or about 14 September 2016; B is 15 September 2016; V is Lau Wing Suet; E is family problems; F is the sum of $150,000.

12.  Particulars of Charge 8 are that Ms Lo, on or about 14 September 2016, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to Cheung Tsui Yuk that she (Ms Lo) was in need of money to solve problems encountered by her brother’s company, and with intent to defraud, induced Cheung Tsui Yuk to commit acts or a series of acts, namely making a loan in the sum of $20,000 Hong Kong currency to Ms Lo, which resulted in benefit to Ms Lo, or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to Cheung Tsui Yuk.

Facts admitted by Ms Lo

13.  At the time of the offences, Ms Lo was teaching at a secondary school. The other persons named in Charges 1 to 6, 8 to 9 were her teaching colleagues at the school (respectively PW1 to PW8).

14.  Ms Lo used various false pretexts to borrow money from PW1 to PW8 in the total sum of $1,405,000.

Charge 1

15.  On a day unknown in April 2014, PW1 received a phone call from Ms Lo. Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money from PW1.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW1 agreed to lend money and transferred $40,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 6 April 2014.

16.  Between 7 April 2014 and 15 July 2016, PW1 further lent monies to Ms Lo either by bank transfer or by cash.  The total amount of the loans including the first one on 6 April 2014 came to $490,000.

Charge 2

17.  On or about 16 July 2014, PW2 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo was crying over the phone.  Ms Lo claimed she was in need of money to solve urgent problems and she asked PW2 to lend her money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW2 agreed to lend money and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 28 July 2014.

18.  On 22 January 2016, PW2 received a further phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money from PW2.  As Ms Lo had not made any repayment for her previous loan, PW2 was only willing to and did transfer $20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 January 2016.

19.  In total, PW2 had lent $50,000 to Ms Lo.

Charge 3

20.  On or about 23 July 2014, PW3 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW3 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and she transferred $50,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 July 2014.

21.  On 22 January 2016, Ms Lo called PW3 again, claiming her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money.  As Ms Lo had not made any repayment for her previous loan, PW3 was only willing to and did transfer $10,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 23 January 2016.

22.  In total, PW3 had lent $60,000 to Ms Lo.

Charge 4

23.  On 9 August 2014, PW4 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 9 August 2014.

24.  On 6 July 2015, PW4 received another phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $30,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 6 July 2015.

25.  On 18 March 2016, Ms Lo called PW4 again, claiming her brother’s company encountered problems.  Even though Ms Lo had not made any repayment for the previous loans, believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW4 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $25,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 19 March 2016.

26.  In total, PW4 had lent $85,000 to Ms Lo.

Charge 5

27.  On or about 22 June 2016, PW5 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW5 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $300,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 24 June 2016.

Charge 6

28.  On or about 15 August 2016, PW6 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW6 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $250,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 16 August 2016.

Charge 8

29.  On or about 14 September 2016, PW7 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her brother’s company encountered financial problems and asked to borrow money.  Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW7 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and transferred $20,000 into Ms Lo’s bank account on 14 September 2016.

Charge 9

30.  On or about 14 September 2016, PW8 received a phone call from Ms Lo.  Ms Lo claimed her family encountered some problems and asked to borrow money. Believing in Ms Lo’s false representation, PW8 agreed to lend money to Ms Lo and gave $150,000 to Ms Lo by way of a cheque on 15 September 2016.

Aftermath

31.  In around November 2016, PW1 to 8 learnt that Ms Lo had been borrowing money from various teachers at the school.  They reported the matter to the school principal PW10.  PW10 met Ms Lo at the principal’s office.  Ms Lo admitted to PW10 that she borrowed money from various teachers but claimed that the money was used for solving problems encountered by her brother’s company.

32.  PW10 asked Ms Lo not to borrow again.  Ms Lo promised to repay all teachers by late December 2016.

33.  A teacher PW9 became the teachers’ representative for pursuing repayments.

34.  However, Ms Lo kept using different excuses to delay repayments.  In early December 2016, Ms Lo told PW9 that she would repay all the loans to all teachers on 12 December 2016.  However, Ms Lo claimed she could not do so shortly afterwards.

35.  On 16 December 2016, Ms Lo and her husband went to school and explained to the teachers that the truth was she had some monetary disputes with a beauty company called “Beauty Care” and needed money[1].

36.  Ms Lo ceased to be under the school’s employment on 6 February 2017.

Arrest and caution

37.  On 11 May 2017, Ms Lo was arrested for fraud.  Under caution at the scene, Ms Lo said she did not intentionally cheat the teachers; that she encountered cash flow problems so she borrowed money from them.

38.  The loan agreements in relation to all the abovementioned loans between Ms Lo and PW1 to PW8 were seized from Ms Lo’s home.

39.  In subsequent cautioned VRIs, Ms Lo stated that:

(a) She met a Ms Yiu Chak Kai (“Yiu”) in a beauty parlour in 2002; between 2011 and 2016, she loaned about $8 million to Yiu; she borrowed from relatives and banks in order to lend money to Yiu; when she could no longer borrow from banks, she turned to her colleagues;

(b) She used “her brother’s company and her family encountered problems” as the reasons for borrowing money from her colleagues in order to get quick results;

(c) She did not tell her colleagues the true reason as she thought they would decline to lend if it was for the benefit of an unrelated party (Yiu);

(d) The loan agreements seized from her home were signed by her and the amounts stated represented the monies she owed; and

(e) Yiu did not repay the loan to her so she did not have the means to repay her colleagues.

Subsequent repayments

40.  Between 31 July and 1 August 2023, PW1 to 2 and PW4 to 8 received some repayments from Ms Lo in the total sum of $31,606 detailed as follows:

(a) PW1 received $11,382;

(b) PW2 received $1,161;

(c) PW4 received $1,974;

(d) PW5 received $6,969;

(e) PW6 received $5,807;

(f) PW7 received $465; and

(g) PW8 received $3,848.

Criminal record

41.  Ms Lo has 6 previous convictions of fraud resulting from one previous court appearance (DCCC 184/2022 refers).  In fact, the present case deals with other victims of the same fact scenario not already dealt with in that case.

Antecedents

42.  Ms Lo is aged 51 (42 at the time of the last-in-time offence), educated to university level.  She previously worked as a Chinese teacher at a secondary school.  She was unemployed at the time of first arrest.  Ms Lo resides with her husband and two children in private housing in Yuen Long.

Mitigation

43.  Mr Clement Lau of counsel mitigated on behalf of Ms Lo.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

44.  Ms Lo is living with his husband (supervisor in construction site with monthly income of about $40,000), daughter (20, hair salon apprentice) and son (16, student) in rented premises of size 500-600 square feet with 3 bedrooms.

45.  Ms Lo is a tertiary education graduate and holds a Certificate in Education for secondary school teaching.  She commenced her teaching career in 1997.  Prior to her arrest, she had been teaching in the subject secondary school for 19 years.

46.  In this case, Ms Lo was herself a victim of deception.  She was deceived by Ms Yiu (“Yiu”).  Out of compassion to her soulmate, Ms Lo lent to Yiu her own savings and those of her family members.  Ms Lo even borrowed from her colleagues in order to further lend to Yiu.  Regrettably, Yiu failed to honour her repayment commitment, thereby placing Ms Lo in significant financial difficulty.  The total amount lent to Yiu came to about $8 million.

47.  When later believing Yiu had not intended to repay the loans from the very beginning, Ms Lo reported Yiu’s alleged deception to the police in late 2016 and early 2017.  Three witness statements had been taken from Ms Lo.

48.  There is no doubt that Ms Lo used false pretexts to borrow from colleagues.  Her decision to cite family difficulties as a pretext was not only to secure the loan more quickly, but, more importantly, to avoid damaging her reputation by disclosing the true reason.

49.  Her deception caused distress to her colleagues and friends; but this was not her intention.  At the time of the loans, she genuinely believed she would be able to repay promptly.  Although the offence of fraud is serious, the circumstances of this case are not particularly egregious.

50.  Ms Lo frankly disclosed the truth to the police.  Even prior to her arrest, Ms Lo had filed a police report regarding how she was deceived by Yiu. Throughout this process, Ms Lo did not withhold information relating to her borrowing from colleagues.

51.  Following her arrest, Ms Lo continued to cooperate fully.  During VRI, she provided a comprehensive account and admitted to the use of misleading pretexts in obtaining loans from her colleagues.  Upon being charged, she indicated prompt guilty pleas.  This conduct reflects her genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing, demonstrable remorse, and willingness to accept responsibility.

52.  In relation to the earlier case against Ms Lo, namely DCCC 184/2022[2], there was already a significant delay between Ms Lo’s arrest on 11 May 2017 and her being charged on 13 January 2022.  This delay was acknowledged and recognized by the sentencing judge in that case to be an unreasonable one.

53.  The delay caused by the prosecution had imposed a significant psychological burden on Ms Lo.  The profound guilt she experienced in connection with this earlier case precipitated the onset of depression in early 2017.  During the period of the earlier delay, Ms Lo has actively sought to embark on a constructive new chapter in life and has demonstrated a sincere commitment to redressing the consequences of her action.

54.  Despite facing significant mental health challenges, Ms Lo maintained a proactive and constructive attitude.  She entered into bankruptcy in 2016, a process which required the surrender of her income to the Official Receiver’s Office (ORO).  Rather than seeking less demanding employment to accommodate her treatment, she chose to resume her professional responsibilities, commencing work as a primary school teacher in September 2017.  In a further demonstration of her commitment to rehabilitation and financial responsibility, she pursued a Certificate in Primary Education in 2021.  This was undertaken for the specific purpose of securing the highest remunerative position within her qualifications, thereby enabling her to repay her outstanding debts to her colleagues as expediently (sic) as possible.  After she was charged in 2022 (for DCCC 184/2022), she promptly reported the same to the school principal.  She subsequently resigned from her full-time role one month later, transitioning to part-time work to ensure a minimal disruption to the school and to facilitate an orderly handover of her duties.  Apart from that, she had completed a certificate in Post-natal Care Worker Training in 2022.

55.  Ms Lo was discharged from bankruptcy on 14 February 2021, having repaid a portion of the debts through the administration of the ORO.  Upon the completion of the bankruptcy order, Ms Lo was notified that a sum from her MPF was available for her unrestricted use.  Ms Lo immediately expressed her intention to apply these funds toward full repayment of the outstanding debts owed to the victims in DCCC 184/2022.  Accordingly and eventually, full restitutions (sic) were made to all the 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022 by way of a compensation order made by Deputy Judge Wai in July 2023 who at the same time sentenced Ms Lo to concurrent prison terms of 18 months suspended for 3 years.

56.  After Ms Lo was sentenced as described, she considered the matter concluded.  Although the conviction record precluded her from resuming work as a teacher in registered schools, she had never given up on finding a new job. Ms Lo has actively engaged in private tutoring work with a monthly income of approximately $12,000.  She also intends to take on the new challenge of being a confinement nanny.  She is working diligently to repay her parents’ mortgage and has also arranged time to care for her elderly parents.  At the same time, she has not forgotten to guide her young children.  Her relationship with her husband has become more stable than before.  Initially believing the matters have settled, her mental condition has also stabilized.

57.  However, on 23 September 2024, after more than 7 years and 4 months since first arrest, Ms Lo was again arrested and charged for the present offences.  Since then, she became concerned about the potential impact on prospective clients’ families and therefore did not take up any position in post-natal care.  Her psychological condition became unstable due to uncertainty of the outcome of the present case.  She was also worried about the possible impact on her rehabilitation plan if she was going to lose her liberty.

58.  The delay between Ms Lo’s initial arrest and her being charged herein is even more severe and was not caused by her.  It was submitted that there was a reasonable expectation on Ms Lo’s part that the case against her was concluded and finalized following her sentence in DCCC 184/2022.  It was further submitted that by being further prosecuted, there is a disruption in her rehabilitation process.

59.  Regarding compensation, two separate batches of monies had been repaid by Ms Lo to the victims of Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9.  First, as an ancillary to the past bankruptcy action, a total sum of $42,203.46 had been repaid. Secondly, between 31 July and 1 August 2023, before Ms Lo was again arrested, she voluntarily repaid a total sum of $31,606 from her remaining savings.

60.  Ms Lo has consistently intended to make full repayment to all victims, but this has not been feasible due to her financial circumstances.  At present, her husband’s income covers all household expenses, including rent, utilities, and the children’s cost.  Approximately $10,000 out of Ms Lo’s own income is allocated towards repaying a mortgage on her parent’s residence.  Before Ms Lo borrowed monies from the victims, her parents had mortgaged their residential flat to assist her in repaying her debts incurred by the lending to Yiu.

61.  Given her limited income, Ms Lo is currently unable to commit to any further restitution (sic) to the victims, unless there is a material change in her financial situation in the future.

62.  It was submitted had this case been heard together with the earlier case of DCCC 184/2022, the victims in the present case would have been compensated more though on a pro rata basis out of the then available pool.

63.  Although a full restitution, unlike in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hui Siu Man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, has not been made, the delay in the present case is significantly longer.

64.  In view of the above, the court is invited to impose another suspended sentence, which would allow for the continuation of Ms Lo’s rehabilitation.  It was submitted this would be an appropriate disposal of the matter.

65.  On behalf of Ms Lo, Mr Lau submitted a total of 13 mitigation letters (9 of which have been produced to the earlier court in DCCC 184/2022) all written in Chinese by various parties.  I shall not summarize them but suffice to say that the writers other than Ms Lo all spoke highly of her.

66.  Upon the suggestion of the court that a Community Service Order (CSO) suitability report might be helpful, Mr Lau submitted that CSO might be a possible sentencing option.

67.  Upon the obtaining of a copy of the said report, Mr Lau further submitted that the report has been explained to and understood by Ms Lo; that she agreed with the report and its recommendations.

CSO Suitability Report

68.  Before sentencing, I ordered that a CSO suitability report be obtained.

69.  The CSO suitability report that came back has its conclusions encapsulated in paras 17 to 19 which are reproduced below:-

“17. The Accused, having grown up in a simple, supportive and protective environment, presented as an unsophisticated person. She pursued her studies diligently and served as a teacher in one secondary school for nearly 20 years before resigning. While she established her own family with a supportive husband, their relationship became strained before and during the material time. The Accused had misplaced trust in her beautician, Ms Yiu, due to her emotional distress in marital relationship, and engaged in a series of dishonest borrowing out of her initial simple wish to help Ms Yiu solve her financial difficulties, with a blind belief that repayment from Ms Yiu would be forthcoming soon. Her borrowing involved banks and finance companies which made the situation more complicated as their loan chasers were more aggressive and threatening. Desperate to recoup her funds, she fabricated various stories to induce victims to lend her more, ultimately placing herself, her colleagues, and her family in financial jeopardy and legal troubles for her.

18. Although the Accused exhibited confusion when recalling details of her money borrowing and repayment history, she was very cooperative and sincere during the enquiry. Reflecting on her wrongdoings, she demonstrated genuine remorse for her misguided judgements and actions based on her misplaced trust in Ms Yiu. She acknowledged her responsibility for fabricating excuses and deceiving her colleagues into lending her money. She admitted to have exploited their kindness and trust, harming their long-standing friendships, and causing them to financial losses. The Accused also felt profound guilt for the losses and distress she has caused her family and regretted the negative impact on her parents. The prolonged court proceedings have taught her a painful yet valuable lesson. She promised to gradually repay the victims from her earnings and will seek her husband’s advice to avoid further reckless decisions. Accepting the legal consequences of her wrongdoings, she respectfully pleaded for leniency and sought a non-custodial sentence. She expressed a strong desire for a CSO as a means of making reparation to society, committing to comply fully with the Order if granted. Her family has expressed unwavering support to her and implored Your Honour for leniency.

19. Given the Accused’s guilty plea, deep remorse, cooperative attitude, ongoing efforts to repay the victims, willingness to take legal responsibility, and readiness to fulfil the requirements of a CSO, it is appropriate to provide her with the opportunity to undertake unpaid community work that will positively contribute to the society. A medium duration of community service under a CSO, as deemed suitable by your Honour, is therefore recommended.”

Sentence

70.  Pursuant to my direction, prosecution conducted some enquiry and wrote on 24 December 2025 to report that the case with Ms Lo as informant, and Yiu as suspect, was classified by the police as “Money Dispute” with no criminal element involved; as such, police investigation was curtailed and no legal advice was ever sought.

71.  It is a little unfortunate that the alleged case of deception with Ms Lo as victim and Yiu as suspect never received the attention of the Department of Justice.  Because of this, I cannot properly assess the weight of the mitigation that Ms Lo was herself a victim of fraud.  In the premises, I will give Ms Lo the benefit of the doubt and accept to the limited extent that it is at least her belief that she was deceived of a substantial sum by Yiu.

72.  Prosecution produced a two-page document headed “Chronology of DCCC 184/2022 and DCCC 1401/2024” which sought to explain first, the time lapse from the time when the fraud case was first reported in March 2017 to the time when DCCC 184/2022 was concluded in July 2023; and secondly, the time lapse from the time 9 other victims contacted the police with a view to resurrecting the case against Ms Lo (culminating in the present case DCCC 1401/2024) in October 2023 to the time set down for plea and sentence herein in December 2025.

73.  From the Chronology, it seems that during the investigative stage of Ms Lo’s entire criminal activities, in September 2021, only 6 victims came forward indicating their willingness to testify in court.  They therefore became the 6 listed victims in DCCC 184/2022 and all of them got their money (or the bulk of it) back mainly through the mechanism of a voluntary compensation order.

74.  It was after the conclusion of the earlier case that the present victims suddenly contacted the police with a view to pursuing the case again.

75.  Upon enquiry by the court, prosecution submitted that during September 2021, the present victims only verbally indicated to the police that they were not willing to become witnesses; that in October 2023, they changed their minds.

76.  I have to say that splitting the prosecution into two parts in this way is highly unsatisfactory.  Not only is this a waste of court resources, it represents an unnecessary drain on the mental well-being of the defendant concerned.

77.  Alleged victims should generally be given one chance only to indicate whether they want to proceed or not: they should not be allowed to change their minds without good reasons.  In this case, I can only suspect that the victims here having learned of the earlier compensation order and knowing Ms Lo will likely plead guilty again want nothing other than a speedy way of recovery of their lost money without the need to go through a civil action at their own costs.

78.  I was not therefore surprised when the prosecution submitted a two-page chart entitled “Personal Details of DCCC 1401/2024” setting out the personal details of PW1 to PW8.  What is more prominent on this chart is there is a column called “Compensation Amount” which contains the amount remaining outstanding and which is due from Ms Lo to each of these eight victims.  The total amount outstanding came to $1,331,190.54.

79.  Unfortunately, Mr Lau told me and, in the absence of anything to the contrary, I am inclined to accept, that Ms Lo is now financially incapable of making further compensations to the victims herein.

80.  I agree with Mr Lau that had these victims come forward at the same time as the other 6 victims in DCCC 184/2022, all would have been able to share on a pro rata basis the general pool available then.  I also note that Ms Lo’s capacity to earn has been substantially reduced as a result of her last recorded conviction.  Given the limited financial resources of Ms Lo and her family members in the foreseeable future, I am not prepared to make another compensation order against Ms Lo.

81.  As regards what sentence I will impose on Ms Lo, I respectfully agree with the general sentiments expressed by the learned Deputy Judge in respect of Ms Lo’s character and personal circumstances.

82.  I merely wish to add that Ms Lo is entitled to have the legitimate expectation that the whole criminal legal process would have ended with her sentencing in DCCC 184/2022, in July 2023.  Unfortunately, it has dragged on for reasons wholly unattributed to her but at the expense of breaking her chain of rehabilitation.

83.  In the premises, I cannot possibly sentence her to immediate prison terms for that will defeat the whole purpose of earlier suspended sentences. Nor do I see any benefit in handing down another set of suspended sentences.

84.  So what I will do is not to disturb the suspended sentence orders earlier made and I will simply allow them to run to their expiry.

85.  As regards the sentence for the present case, in light of the positive comments and recommendations of the CSO suitability report, and of Ms Lo’s satisfaction of most, if not all, of the 6 factors identified in R v Brown (1981) 2 Cr App R (S) 294,295, the court is minded to impose a CSO of 160 work hours on Ms Lo.

[ I then explained to Ms Lo in ordinary language the purpose and effect of the intended Order, the consequences of failure to comply with the requisite conditions and requirements, the consequences of re-offence, and finally the court’s power to review the Order. Ms Lo indicates her consent to the making of a CSO]

86.  I am satisfied of the following:-

(a) Ms Lo consents to the making of such an order;

(b) She is a suitable person to perform work under such an order; and

(c) Provision can be made for her to perform work under such an order.

(Ms Lo, please stand)

87.  On Charges 1 to 6, and 8 to 9, the sentence for each is a Community Service Order of 160 work hours, to be served concurrently.