HKSAR v. CHONG CHIN TONG AND OTHERS

HCCC 149/2021

[2023] HKCFI 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 149 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

________________________

COURT: This is a case with 10 defendants; 9 have pleaded guilty and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence on 12 July 2021. All counts in this case are either robbery charges or attempted robbery charges and involved nine incidents dated between 27 November 2019 and 11 February 2020.

	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D8	D9	D10
Charge 1 Attempted Robbery	PG	PG	PG	-	-	-	-	-	-
Charge 2 Robbery	PG	PG	PG	-	-	-	-	-	-
Charge 3 Robbery	PG	PG	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Charge 4 Robbery	PG	PG	PG	-	-	-	-	-	-
Charge 5 Robbery	-	-	-	PG	-	-	-	-	PG
Charge 6 Robbery	PG	-	PG	-	-	PG	-	-	-
Charge 7 Robbery	-	-	-	-	PG	-	-	PG	-
Charge 8 Robbery	-	-	-	PG	-	-	-	-	-
Charge 9 Robbery	PG	-	-	PG	PG	-	-	PG	-
Charge 10 Attempted Robbery	-	-	-	-	-	-	PG	-	-

All defendants agreed to the Summary of Facts and I will summarise the particulars of each charge. There were instances of plea bargaining and some of the defendants have pleaded guilty to some charges whilst other charges they were involved in were not pursued.

For Charge 1, attempted robbery, and Charge 2, a robbery, they both took place together at the same time on 27 November 2019 at about 7 pm. Mr Lee, carrying a cross-shoulder bag containing $1.5 million in cash and a Ms Chu, carrying a bag containing $1.2 million in cash were walking together along Ashley Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. They were to deliver this cash to a friend purchasing decoration material for their interior design business. They were targeted and robbed by the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. The 2^nd defendant snatched Ms Chu’s bag successfully, causing her to fall to the ground, Charge 2. The 1^st and 3^rd defendants tackled Mr Lee and tried to snatch away his bag but failed, Charge 1. The $1.2 million in cash was never recovered. All of the defendants claimed that they were recruited to commit these offences and received a financial reward.

For Charge 3, on 11 December 2019, at about midnight, staff members of an electronic game centre in Tai Po was robbed as she was about to close and lock up the game centre. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants rushed in wearing masks and each holding a weapon, 30-centimetre long beef knives which they pointed at the victim. When they pointed the knives at her, they told her to go back inside the game centre, not make any noise and open up the cashier’s desk or drawer. They took $45,000 and fled. Both defendants claimed they were recruited to commit this robbery and received a financial reward.

For Charge 4, on 18 December 2019 at about 10.35 pm, the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants entered Yuen Chau Tsai Clubhouse whilst some patrons were playing mah-jong, all wearing masks, caps and each brandishing a weapon, a 10-inch beef knife. The defendants instructed all the occupants to put all their money and mobile phones on top of the mah-jong table. The 1^st defendant search an occupant’s bag and found $6,000 inside which he had not surrendered. The 1^st defendant kicked him in the face causing his nose to bleed.

From five victims who were inside the premises, the defendant stole a total of $121,000 in cash, six mobile phones, a diamond ring, a cardholder and an automatic teller machine card. No property was recovered except for $18,300-odd seized from the 2^nd defendant who was arrested two days later. He said that money was proceeds from that robbery. All of the defendants claimed they were recruited to commit the robbery and received a financial reward.

For Charge 5, on 25 December 2019, at about 12.30 in the morning, a staff member of a petrol station in the New Territories was threatened and robbed by four males. One was holding a crowbar whilst the other three were holding 30-centimetre long beef knives. There was a customer there when they entered and they pointed the weapons at that member of staff. He was told to put all the cash in a bag that the robbers had provided. One of the robbers damaged the CCTV camera inside the premises.

They robbed him of HK$20,000 and 80,000 RMB. None of the stolen property was ever recovered. The 4^th and 10^th defendants were two of the four males who claimed they were recruited to commit this robbery and were given a financial reward.

For Charge 6, on 30 December 2019, at about 7.15 pm, Mr Lee, the victim of Charge 1 was again delivering cash to premises on Ashley Road and contained in a bag with $500,000 cash. He was robbed by the 1^st, 3^rd and 6^th defendants on the pavement. The 1^st defendant pointed a knife at him. Mr Lee tried to run away but was chased down. There was a struggle and he was cut by the knife. His finger sustained a mild injury. His bag with cash was snatched away and not recovered.

A witness saw the three defendants wearing masks getting on board a private vehicle close to the robbery location. All the defendants claimed they were recruited to commit this robbery and received a financial reward except the 6^th defendant.

For Charge 7, on 11 January 2020 at about 5 am, two staff members of a petrol station were threatened and robbed by three males, including the 5^th and 9^th defendants. Two of the men were carrying 18-inch beef knives. They pointed the beef knives at the staff and declared robbery. They took away $12,600 in cash which was not recovered. The defendants claimed they were recruited to commit this robbery and all received a financial reward.

For Charge 8, on 12 January, the following day, the same petrol station was robbed again. Three males, including the 4^th defendant, all wearing masks this time, came in at about 1.24 am. One of them was brandishing an 18-inch long knife. They declared robbery and took away cash of $2,500 which was not recovered. The 4^th defendant claimed he was recruited to commit this robbery and received a financial reward.

For Charge 9, on 13 January at about midnight, staff member working at a games centre in Tai Po was about to close for the night but there were still three customers playing games inside. The staff member was threatened and robbed by three men wearing masks who entered the premises. Two of them were holding 30-centimetre long knives. The other defendant had acted as a lookout. Robbery was declared and they took away $20,000 in cash which was not recovered. All the defendants claimed they were recruited to commit this robbery and received a financial reward.

For Charge 10, an attempted robbery charge, on 11 February 2020 at about 1.30am in the morning, a female victim was walking her dog in Tai Po when four men wearing masks approached her and declared robbery. She immediately ran away shouting for help. She was chased by the males but they fled when a passer-by appeared. When she ran away, the victim did fall to the ground and was injured but did not have anything stolen during the attempted robbery. There was CCTV footage of the chase recovered by the police and one male chasing her is seen holding and brandishing a knife. The 8^th defendant claimed to have been recruited to rob the female victim but ran away when she fled and other people appeared.

From the facts agreed, weapons in the form of knives or a crowbar were brandished in the course of the robberies or attempted robberies in all of the charges except for Charges 1 and 2. In the first incident, Charges 1 and 2, the victim of Charge 2 was pushed to the ground by a robber before her bag was snatched at the same time as the victim of Charge 1 was physically attacked by the other two robbers.

Guidelines

I have been referred to and have considered the authority of R v Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610 for guidelines in the sentencing cases of armed robbery. The Court of Appeal found a 5-year starting point appropriate for an ordinary armed robbery where a single robber carries a knife which is displayed to a victim.

For an unarmed robbery, the starting point will generally be no more than 4 years’ imprisonment. I have referred myself to HKSAR v Ting Chiu and Another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378. However, 4 years is not to be regarded as the normal sentence for an unarmed robbery. It will depend on the circumstances of the individual case. I have referred myself to HKSAR v Tam Ping Wo Angus, CACC 73/2020.

The Court of Appeal in Mo Kwong Sang considered aggravating factors which would increase the starting point of 5 years. For example, if a robbery involved an invasion of private premises, be it domestic or business premises or common areas such as lifts or staircases, then a starting point of 6 years would be appropriate. If there is any physical violence such as victims are tied up, then a sentence of 7 years would be appropriate.

Other aggravating factors that can be taken into account to enhance any sentence would include multiple robbers involved, the loss suffered and amount of money unrecovered, ill-treatment of victims, the commission of multiple offences, entering domestic premises and confronting victims late at night or serious threats made to victims.

In this case, consideration could be given to certain facts that may be considered aggravating and enhance the starting point of 5 years for those charges involving weapons. For example, most of the robberies were committed inside private or business premises. Most of the robberies included multiple robbers, not lone single robbers. Several defendants have pleaded to multiple charges.

Young Offenders

Some offenders were very young at the time of the arrest, as young as 14 or 15. Nonetheless, I have considered the requirement of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and whether or not before I decide to impose a term of imprisonment, because no other method of dealing with a particular defendant is appropriate, to call for certain reports.

The duty of a sentencing court is to consider the circumstances both of the offence and the offender. Age is always a mitigating factor in sentencing because the well-being of a young person is paramount. Imprisonment should only be consider if that young person cannot suitably be dealt with in another way. However, the rehabilitation and reformation of an offender competes with the demands of proportionate punishment. There must be sufficient regard to the seriousness of the offence.

In this case, the offence of robbery where a weapon is displayed or violence is used is serious. The fact becomes more serious where then are aggravating factors and the defendant has committed multiple offences. Then this will demand an immediate custodial sentence despite the young age of an individual defendant.

There are offences, and robbery must be one of them, where deterrence has to be prioritised over mitigating factors such as a young age. Unless there are particularly powerful and peculiarly contrary reasons attached to the personal circumstances of an individual young offender, then public interest requires an imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment.

Here, there is the additional consideration of a significant lapse of time between the commission of the offence, the detention of all but one of the defendants pending sentence and the date of sentencing. None of the defendants here are very young anymore and have been in remand for over 3 years.

Even though it is not a case of training centre or detention centre never being appropriate for young robbers, I have decided in this case, not to call for any reports and find no other method of dealing with the defendants other than to impose imprisonment. This does not, however, apply to the 8^th defendant who was 16 at the time and has been on bail since. I will call for reports where the 8^th defendant is concerned.

Mitigation

The 1^st defendant

Ms Catherine Wong has mitigated on behalf of the 1^st defendant and said all she can say on his behalf. He has pleaded guilty to six charges. I have received written mitigation and mitigating letters in advance. The most salient points of his mitigation are the fact that he had a clear record and was 15 years old, nearly 16, at the time of these offences. He is now 19. He was arrested on 12 February 2020 and has been detained until now. When he was arrested, he was studying Form 4. He had always lived with his paternal grandmother whilst his parents are divorced. At the time of his arrest, he was working part-time in a bicycle shop since cycling is his passion and he participated in cycling races as well as working as a waiter to earn money in order to participate in competitions.

Like all the defendants, his best mitigation is his pleas of guilty but in his case also the fact that he in DCCC 1106/2021 provided the prosecution with non-prejudicial statements against his accomplices of Charges 7 and 8 of this case and testified during their trial. They were convicted after trial and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. I have been provided with the judgment and reasons for sentence.

The Department of Justice has written a letter affirming that the assistance rendered by the 1^st defendant was of practical use. Ms Wong is therefore urging the court to give him a further discount on top of his one-third discount for his plea at the earliest opportunity for this further co-operation.

The 2^nd defendant

Mr Adonis Cheung has mitigated on behalf of the 2^nd defendant and said all he can say on his behalf. He has pleaded guilty to four charges. I have received written mitigation in advance. The most salient points of his mitigation are the facts that the 2^nd defendant had a clear record and was 15 years old at the time of these offences. He is now 18. He was a student at the time of his arrest and lived with his parents and younger brother. He committed these offences because he was tempted by the money he was offered and naïvely went along with his friends. He was easily influenced.

It has been highlighted in mitigation that although the robberies related to the 3^rd and 4^th charges did involve weapons, they were only displayed and there was no physical violence. Although there were multiple offences, they were committed within a short period of time. Nevertheless, it is an aggravating factor that there were multiple robbers in each offence.

The 3^rd defendant

Mr Cheung also represented the 3^rd defendant and has said all he can say on his behalf. He also pleaded guilty to four charges. The 3^rd defendant was 18 at the time of the offences and now 22 years old. When he was arrested he was a student and had a clear record. He was living with his mother and stepfather at the time of these offences with limited or no income. He too was tempted by the offer of money and naïvely went along with his friends.

Similar mitigation to the 2^nd defendant was advanced on his behalf. The 3^rd defendant has written a letter to the court and whilst on remand has sponsored a child in Po Leung Kuk since June 2022. He expresses remorse in his letter and was influenced by peers which he now greatly regrets. He is sorry his family have to worry about him in his present predicament. He asks for leniency.

The 4^th defendant

Miss Kamina Lai has mitigated on behalf of the 4^th defendant and also said all she can say on his behalf. I have received written mitigation, letters, copies of awards and medals for my perusal. He has pleaded guilty to three charges. At the time of the offences he was 14 years old and he is now 18 years old. He had a clear record at the time. He was brought up by his grandmother from the age of six. He saw his father every few months but has had little or no relationship with his mother. When he was arrested, he was still a student. He had no parental guidance, no discipline or control and mingled with juvenile delinquents. He too was tempted by money when invited to commit these offences. He readily admits he underestimated the seriousness of these offences.

Like the 1^st defendant he too, in DCCC 1106/2021, provided the prosecution with non-prejudicial statements against his accomplice at Charge 8 in this case and testified during the trial. The accomplice was convicted after trial and also sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. From the judgment, it is clear that his evidence was accepted and led to the conviction.

Miss Lai therefore urges the court to give him a further discount on top of his one-third discount for his pleas because of this further co-operation with the authorities. She has also highlighted his young age at the time and remorse evidenced by pleas.

The 5^th defendant

Mr Michael Leung has mitigated on behalf of the 5^th defendant who pleaded guilty to two charges. At the time of these offences, he was 16 years old and is now 19. His parents divorced when he was 8 years old and he later lived with his mother and two younger siblings. He was close to his father who unfortunately died in June 2021 of cancer. At the material time, he was working as a part-time waiter because his mother could not afford to financially support him and he left school.

In 2019, he did go to live with his father who was already unable to work due to illness. He wanted to financially provide for his father and was tempted to earn easy money by taking part in these robberies. He admits he was naïve and easily recruited.

I have a letter from the defendant who is traumatised by the fact his father died whilst he was in remand and he did not have an opportunity to say goodbye. He expresses his remorse and determination to start afresh. His young age has been stressed but it is accepted that in both charges, weapons were displayed, both premises were private business premises and some of the money stolen during the course of robbery was recovered when he was arrested.

The 6^th defendant

Mr Cheung has mitigated on behalf of the 6^th defendant and stresses his plea to one charge is his best mitigation. He was 29 at the time of this offence and was working as a delivery worker. He lived at home with his mother. He is not a man with a clear record. He has fourteen convictions over eight court appearances. He has two convictions for robbery in 2006 and four offences of dishonesty in 2018. Other convictions include offences of violence and possession of dangerous drugs. Under those circumstances, I do consider him a recidivist.

It has been stressed that this victim did suffer a cut to his finger from a knife used in the course of the robbery but the injury was superficial. It is accepted that there were multiple robbers and that this victim was obviously targeted, carrying a large amount of cash.

The 8^th defendant

Mr Chase Pun mitigated on behalf of the 8^th defendant and has said all he can say on his behalf. He has pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery. This defendant was 16 at the time of this offence which he committed with four other males. CCTV footage showed one of the males carrying a knife. They tried to rob a 56-year-old lady walking her dog but she managed to run away. She did trip over and hurt herself trying to get away from these young men.

It is stressed that he had a clear record and suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as dyslexia and is on the autism spectrum. He was arrested on 25 February 2020 and granted bail a few weeks later. Whilst on bail, he has continued to study and is a student at a youth college in Tuen Mun studying for an information technology diploma. He lives with his parents.

I have seen four mitigation letters written by the defendant, his parents, a social worker and teachers. It has been stressed that after his arrest, he did make a non-prejudicial statement and tried his best to provide some information to the police.

The 9^th defendant

Mr Leung who also represented the 5^th defendant mitigated on behalf of the 9^th defendant. He said all he could say on his behalf. This defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery. They were committed three days apart. At the time of these offences, he was 19 years old and 22 now. His best mitigation is his pleas of guilty. At the time of these offences, he had a clear record.

I have had a letter from this defendant’s mother. She has explained that when he was only 11, his parents divorced due to adultery and domestic abuse. He has had no contact with his father since his parents divorced. When he was young, he was also diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and subsequently did not do well at school academically. He stopped attending school when he was 15 years old and tried to get a job. He soon became involved with dubious peers and his mother had little control over him.

His mother senses his genuine remorse since his arrest and is sure he is determined to turn over a new leaf. She asks for leniency.

The 10^th defendant

Mr Pun, who represented the 8^th defendant as well has mitigated on behalf of the 10^th defendant. I have received four letters of mitigation. He has pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery. He was arrested on 23 May 2020. At the time of the offence, he was 16 years old and he is now 19 years old.

At the time of the robbery, he had a clear record but has since subsequently been convicted of possession of a dangerous drug in August 2020 and sent to a detention centre. He was convicted of possession of an identity card relating to another person in April 2021 as well as theft and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in total. Prior to his arrest, he had been living with his parents and younger brother.

It has been said in mitigation that he is genuinely remorseful. He tried to assist the police and made two non-prejudicial statements which led to an arrest but he failed to identify that person in an identification parade and subsequently there was no prosecution.

I have read the two statements and accept he tried to give useful information to the police. Mr Pun is asking the court to give defendant a further discount for the assistance he rendered. I have also been urged to take into account the fact that he was 16 at the time of this robbery.

Consideration of Starting Points

I have carefully considered the facts of each charge, mitigation put forward for each defendant and the sentencing guidelines for armed and unarmed robberies, as well as enhancements for particularly or for particular aggravating factors here. Those include where there are multiple robbers, where some defendants committed multiple charges, where large amounts of money was stolen and not recovered, and where violence was gratuitously inflicted.

For Charge 1, an unarmed attempted robbery on the street, I will take a starting point of 4 years which I will increase by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers, making a total of 4 years and 6 months starting point.

For Charge 2, an unarmed robbery, I will take a starting point of 4 years which I will increase by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. I will enhance this starting point of 4 years and 6 months by a further 9 months to take into account the violence against the victim, pushing her over in order to snatch her bag, as well as the large amount of cash, $1.2 million, stolen and unrecovered. This makes a starting point of 5 years and 3 months for Charge 2.

For Charge 3, an armed robbery, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment which takes into account the beef knives pointed at the victim in an electronic game centre late at night. This was a retail business premises. I will enhance that starting point by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point of 6 years and 6 months for Charge 3.

For Charge 4, an armed robbery, I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment which takes into account beef knives pointed at the victim inside private premises which I will enhance and increase by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

However, as far as the 1^st defendant is concerned, I will enhance that starting point for him by a further 6 months for kicking a victim in the face hard enough to cause a nosebleed when he searched his bag and found he had not surrendered all his cash as demanded. For the 1^st defendant there is a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment for Charge 4.

For Charge 5, an armed robbery, I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment which takes into account beef knives and a crowbar pointed at staff and a client in a petrol station which I will enhance and increase by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charge 5.

For Charge 6, an armed robbery, I take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for a beef knife pointed at a victim on the street. I increase that starting point by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers and another 9 months to take into account the minor injuries suffered by the victim as well as the large amount involved, $500,000 in cash, stolen and unrecovered. This makes a starting point of 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for Charge 6.

For Charge 7 and 8, armed robberies, I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment which takes into account beef knives and a crowbar pointed at staff in a petrol station which I will enhance and increase by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for both charges, these Charges 7 and 8.

For Charge 9, an armed robbery, I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment which takes into account beef knives pointed at a staff member of a retail business, an amusement game centre, which I will increase and enhance by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charge 9.

For Charge 10, an attempted armed robbery, I take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment which takes into account the weapon brandished by one of the robbers and increase that by 6 months to take into account multiple robbers. This makes a starting point of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charge 10.

Sentences

For the 1^st defendant, he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and gave evidence in a criminal trial for the prosecution as an accomplice which resulted in a conviction. I find he is entitled to a 50 per cent discount. Therefore for Charge 1, the starting point of 4 years and 6 months is reduced to 2 years and 3 months. For Charge 2, 5 years and 3 months, reduced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 3, 6 years and 6 months, starting point is reduced to 3 years and 3 months. For Charge 4, 7 years is reduced to 3 years and 6 months. For Charge 6, 6 years and 3 months starting point is reduced to 3 years and 2 months. For Charge 9, 6 years and 6 months starting point is reduced to 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

I have taken into account the totality principle, all mitigation and the multiple charges committed in a relatively short timeframe. I will order 12 months of Charge 9 to be served consecutively to Charge 4 and the balance of Charge 9 and all other charges to be served concurrently. Therefore, the 1^st defendant is sentenced to a total of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2^nd defendant, he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a one-third discount. For Charge 1, the starting point of 4 years and 6 months is reduced to 3 years. For Charge 2, the starting point of 5 years and 3 months is reduced to 3 years and 6 months. For Charge 3, a starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months. For Charge 4, the starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

I have taken into account the totality principle, all mitigation and the multiple charges committed. I will order 9 months of Charge 4 to be served consecutively to Charge 3, with the balance of Charge 4 and all other charges to be served concurrently. The 2^nd defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 5 years and 1 month’ imprisonment.

For the 3^rd defendant, his plea at the earliest opportunity entitles him to a discount of one-third. For Charge 1, the starting point of 4 years and 6 months is reduced to 3 years. For Charge 2, the starting point of 5 years and 3 months is reduced to 3 years and 6 months. For Charge 4, starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months. For Charge 6, 6 years and 3 months starting point is reduced to 4 years and 2 months.

I have taken into account totality principle, all mitigation and the multiple offences committed. I will order 9 months of Charge 6 to be served consecutively to Charge 4, with the balance of Charge 6 and all other charges to be served concurrently. The 3^rd defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 1 month’ imprisonment.

For the 4^th defendant, his plea at the earliest opportunity and the fact he gave evidence in a criminal trial for the prosecution as an accomplice which results in a conviction has been taken into account. I find he is entitled to a 50 per cent discount. For Charge 5, the starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 3 years and 3 months. For Charge 8, similarly, 6 years and 6 months starting point is reduced to 3 years and 3 months. Charge 9, starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 3 years and 3 months.

I have taken into account the totality principle, all mitigation and the multiple offences committed. I will order 9 months of Charge 9 to be served consecutively to Charge 5 with the balance of Charge 9 and all other charges to be served concurrently. The 4^th defendant is sentenced to a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.

For the 5^th defendant, his plea at the earliest opportunity also entitles him to a discount of one-third. For Charge 7, the starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months. For Charge 9, the starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months.

I have taken into account the totality principle, all mitigation and the multiple offences committed. I will order 6 months of Charge 9 to be served consecutively to Charge 7 with the balance to be served concurrently. The 5^th defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

For the 6^th defendant, his plea at the earliest opportunity entitles him to a discount of one-third. However, he has a bad criminal record with similar convictions. I find he is a recidivist and I will enhance his starting point by 6 months to reflect this aggravating factor. Therefore the starting point for Charge 6 is 6 years and 9 months. He only faces Charge 6, I will reduce that starting point of 6 years and 9 months by one-third and sentence the 6^th defendant to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For the 8^th defendant, I will adjourn to call for training centre and detention centre reports. His sentence is adjourned to 14 April 2023, 9.30 am, before me with further mitigation reserved. As of now, the 8^th defendant’s bail is revoked and he will be remanded in gaol custody.

For the 9^th defendant, he is entitled to a discount of one-third for his pleas at the earliest opportunity. For Charge 7, that starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months. For Charge 9, that starting point of 6 years and 6 months is reduced to 4 years and 4 months.

I have taken into account the totality principle and all mitigation and the multiple offences committed. I will order 6 months of Charge 9 to be served consecutively to Charge 7, with the balance to be served concurrently. The 9^th defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

For the 10^th defendant, his plea at the earliest opportunity entitles him to a discount of one-third. However, he also gave assistance or tried to give assistance in the form of a non-prejudicial statement and participated in an identification parade. But due to insufficient evidence, there was no prosecution of that suspect. Nevertheless, I find he should receive some discount for that assistance on top of his discount for his plea, despite it not leading to a more fruitful result.

The 10^th defendant only faces Charge 5, I reduce the starting point of 6 years and 6 months by just under 38 per cent and sentence the 10^th defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment.