HKSAR v. LAU CHING YEE

DCCC 26/2019

[2020] HKDC 449

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 26 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Defendant Lau Ching Yee pleaded guilty before me to 5 charges namely, Charges 1 & 2 of Fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210; and Charges 3 & 5 of Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210; and Charge 7 of Doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.

2.  Particulars of Charge 1 are that Ms Lau, between 23 February 2016 and 4 May 2016, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing that she was the holder of a valid Certificate of Registration as a Teacher and with intent to defraud Sze Chi King of Fresh Fish Traders’ School to commit an act, namely, to employ the said Ms Lau as a supply teacher of the said school, which would result in benefit to the said Ms Lau or in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to the said Fresh Fish Traders’ School.

3.  Particulars of Charge 2 are similar.  The relevant period is between 11 April 2016 and 12 May 2016.  The person induced was Tsang Kwong Sin of Chiu Yang Primary School of Hong Kong.

4.  Particulars of Charge 3 are that Ms Lau, on 5 March 2018, at Room 212, Yan Fuk House (Block 6), Tin Yan Estate, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories, in Hong Kong, stole cash of $450 Hong Kong currency, the property belonging to Nong Chenjuan.

5.  Particulars of Charge 5 are that Ms Lau, on the same date, at the same place, stole cash of $200 Hong Kong currency, the property belonging to Chan Ping Wah.

6.  Particulars of Charge 7 are that Ms Lau, on 7 September 2018, at Court No 26, 11^th Floor, High Court Building, No 38 Queensway, Central, in Hong Kong, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she:-

(1) Submitted a false letter dated 3 September 2018 purportedly issued by one “Man Yuen Ling (Social Worker-Department of Social Welfare/Castle Peak Hospital)” to the High Court Judge hearing the said Ms Lau’s bail application in HCCP 513/2018 in support of her bail application; and

(2) Falsely represented to the said High Court Judge in her oral submissions that the said letter was written by the said “Man Yuen Ling”.

7.  Ms Lau pleaded not guilty to Charges 4 and 6 of Theft.  Prosecution asked that they be left on court file.  I therefore ordered that they be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.

Admitted facts

8.  The facts admitted by Ms Lau may be summarized as follows.

9.  Ms Lau had been a registered teacher since 29 August 2007, but her registration was cancelled by the Education Bureau (“the EDB”) on 9 October 2014, meaning she could no longer work as a teacher in any schools in Hong Kong.

10.  Ms Lau was required to return her Certificate of Registration as a Teacher to the EDB, but she later claimed that it had been lost in the mail when it was being posted to the EDB in November 2014.

Charge 1 – Fraud

11.  Fresh Fish Traders’ School was recruiting a supply teacher.  Ms Lau applied for the job under the name of “LAU Chin-yee”.

12.  On 23 February 2016, the headmaster conducted an interview with Ms Lau, during which Ms Lau produced copies of supporting documents, including her HKID card and a copy of her Certificate of Registration as a Teacher under the name of “LAU Ching-yee”.  Ms Lau explained that she had changed her name to “LAU Chin-yee” and that she would provide the relevant documents prepared by her lawyer in due course.

13.  The school employed Ms Lau as a supply teacher and she started working at the school on 2 March 2016 at a daily salary of HK$1,109.  She was reminded to provide her original supporting documents, including her original Certificate of Registration as a Teacher.

14.  On 11 March 2016, Ms Lau provided the school with a copy of some supporting documents, but she failed to provide the original Certificate of Registration as a Teacher or any documents regarding her change of name.  The Immigration Department later confirmed that Ms Lau had never applied for any change of name.

15.  On 16 March 2016, the headmaster received complaints from parents that Ms Lau had tutored students at expensive fees. Ms Lau’s employment was then suspended on 17 March 2016.

16.  On 4 May 2016, as requested by the school, Ms Lau returned and showed the headmaster a copy of her Certificate of Registration as a Teacher dated 29 August 2007 but refused to submit it to the school.  The headmaster therefore took a picture of the said copy of the certificate.

17.  Between 2 March 2016 and 17 March 2016, Ms Lau worked at the school as a supply teacher for a total of 12 days.  Her salary for that period was HK$13,308 but she later became out of reach and had not picked up her paycheck.

Charge 2 – Fraud

18.  In April 2016, Chiu Yang Primary School of Hong Kong was recruiting a supply teacher for the English and Music subjects.  Ms Lau attended an interview for the position with the deputy headmaster on 11 April 2016.

19.  During the interview, Ms Lau filled out an application form on which she stated that her supply teacher reference number was R253892.  Her registration number was R253392 before her registration as a teacher had been cancelled.

20.  The deputy headmaster then asked Ms Lau to have a trial day on 5 May 2016 and reminded her to produce her original Certificate of Registration as a Teacher.

21.  On 5 May 2016, Ms Lau started working at the School and filled in an employment form, on which she stated that her registration number was R258392 and checked the box confirming that she was a registered teacher.  She also provided supporting documents including her bank passbook, her graduation certificate and her HKID card.  However, she had never provided the original Certificate of Registration as a Teacher.

22.  On 9 May 2016, the school received complaints from parents as there were news reports regarding a supply teacher at the school who had provided private tuition to the school’s students.  The school then reported the case to the Police on 10 May 2016.

23.  Ms Lau had worked at the school as a supply teacher on 5, 6, and between 9 and 12 May 2016 and was entitled to a total salary of HK$6,878.  However, the school had not paid Ms Lau yet.

Charges 3 and 5 – Theft

24.  Ms Nong owned a sundries shop in Tin Shui Wai.  At around 12:30 a.m. on 5 March 2018, Ms Lau walked past the shop and asked for directions to Tsuen Wan.  They then started a conversation about private tutorials, during which Ms Lau claimed to be an English teacher at a Christian school in Tsuen Wan.  She also claimed that she provided private tutoring for children and offered to tutor Ms Nong’s son Chan junior (aged 11) at HK$180/hour.  Ms Nong declined the offer but gave Ms Lau her contact details and home address upon Ms Lau’s insistence.

25.  At around 4:30 p.m. on 5 March 2018, Ms Lau went to Ms Nong’s home without prior notice.  Ms Nong was surprised but let her in.  Ms Nong then asked Chan junior to chat with Ms Lau to see if she was a suitable private tutor for him.  Ms Nong had also told her husband CHAN senior that Ms Lau was a private tutor, and Ms Lau told Chan senior that she was a teacher at “Tsuen Wan Christian School”.

26.  Ms Lau then started chatting with Chan junior in the living room using Cantonese and simple English.  She had told him that she was an English teacher at a school in Tsuen Wan.  She had also taken his mobile phone and copied the telephone numbers and names of his classmates saved on his phone onto a piece of paper.  She told him that it would become useful later.  During the session, Ms Lau had not taught him anything and had merely asked him about the appearance of his classmates.

27.  At around 6:30 p.m. that day, Ms Nong and her husband were about to leave for work at their sundries shop, but Ms Lau said that she was not done tutoring yet.  Chan senior then stayed behind.  Before leaving, Ms Nong gave Ms Lau HK$150 as a token of appreciation.  However, Ms Lau said that she charged HK$150/hour and should be paid HK$300 more.  Ms Nong therefore paid her another HK$300 and left for work.  Ms Nong paid Ms Lau HK$450 in total. (Charge 3)

28.  At around 7:15 p.m., Ms Lau told Chan senior that the lesson was over and asked him for money, so he gave her HK$100.  He did not know that his wife had already paid her.  Ms Lau then said that Ms Nong had promised her HK$180/session but that she would accept HK$150 instead.  As he had no change, he gave another HK$100 to Ms Lau.  Chan junior wanted to tell his father that his mother had already paid Ms Lau, but Ms Lau immediately broke him off.  Chan senior paid Ms Lau HK$200 in total (Charge 5).

29.  After Ms Lau had left, son told father that Ms Lau had already been paid.  They then tried to chase after Ms Lau but failed.  The case was then reported.

30.  Ms Lau was arrested on 7 March 2018.

Charge 7 – Doing Acts Tending and Intended to Pervert the Course of Public Justice

31.  Ms Lau had been granted court bail for the present case since 9 March 2018 but her bail was revoked on 20 August 2018.  Ms Lau then filed an application for bail with the Court of First Instance which was heard before a High Court Judge on 7 September 2018.

32.  During the hearing and in support of her bail application, Ms Lau submitted a 3-page handwritten letter on lined paper with no letterhead dated 3 September 2018 purportedly issued by one “MAN Yuen-ling (Social Worker-Department of Social Welfare/Castle Peak Hospital)”.  In the letter, the alleged “MAN Yuen-ling” claimed to be a social worker at Castle Peak Hospital who had been following Ms Lau’s case and urged the Court to grant bail to Ms Lau as Ms Lau had to donate her liver to her sick grandmother in China.

33.  The High Court Judge then questioned Ms Lau about the unofficial format of the letter.  In her oral submissions, Ms Lau falsely represented to the High Court Judge that Miss MAN was a social worker following her case and had written the letter for her as a friendly favour.

34.  The letter submitted by Ms Lau was false.

Criminal record

35.  Ms Lau has through 3 court attendances accumulated 15 previous convictions 14 of which are similar.  The last time she was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment was on 8 August 2017.

Antecedents

36.  Ms Lau is aged 36 (32-35 at the time of the offences), single, with unknown education background, and lived in public housing at the time of arrest.  She claimed to be a saleslady.  She was last discharged from prison on 11 January 2018 and her date of arrest for this case was 7 March 2018.

Mitigation

37.  Mr Khattak of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Ms Lau.

38.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

39.  Mr Khattak submitted that when sentencing Ms Lau for Charges 1 and 2 (committed between 23 February and 12 May 2016), this court should consider totality as if these charges and those that were dealt with on 8 August 2017 by another court were heard together.

40.  Mr Khattak asked the court to consider delay in prosecution as a mitigating factor in respect of Charges 1 & 2, and Charges 3 and 5.

41.  Mr Khattak submitted that the history of mental illness of Ms Lau can be traced back to 2012 at the Castle Peak Hospital; that according to Ms Lau, she had been treated and examined by Dr Bonnie Siu soon after she transgressed the law in 2013.  It was further submitted that there appeared to be a real possibility that Ms Lau might have been under the same or a degree of mental illness when she committed the offences back in 2013, 2015 and 2017.

42.  Mr Khattak submitted that the reason why Ms Lau had not collected the wages from both of the schools subject of Charges 1 and 2 was she had remorse of what she had done.

43.  Mr Khattak submitted that in relation to Charges 3 & 5, the demand of $180 per tuition’s hour was a reasonable fee for tutoring a primary/secondary school student even for a non-registered teacher. It was further submitted that Ms Lau did conduct oral English with Chan junior.

44.  Mr Khattak submitted 10 mitigation letters written by the following persons with the following contents (in brief):-

(a) Grandmother: in August 2018, the grandmother in the Mainland was in critical condition and was in need of a liver transplant; Ms Lau tried to obtain bail from the High Court (Charge 7) so she could travel to the Mainland and donate her liver; that Ms Lau had been an exemplary student at school and started working after F5 so she may help out the family expenses yet she continued to study in the evening until she was admitted to what is now the Education University; that she committed the other offences because of the need to repay her brother’s huge gambling debts;

(b) Mother: mother seeks a lenient sentence for Ms Lau; Ms Lau committed the dishonesty offences not for personal gains but because she wanted to lighten the mental burden on the parents caused by her younger brother’s debts; now both the mother and Ms Lau are determined to forsake the young man and stay away from him; Ms Lau committed the offences out of extreme stress which made her lose her senses;

(c) Friend Ms Chan who is a parent of a retarded girl: Ms Chan asks for a lenient sentence for Ms Lau; she came to know Ms Lau in 2001 when the latter was still a F6 student; Ms Lau was then a volunteer teaching assistant at her daughter’s school; Ms Chan and fellow parents of other children appreciated Ms Lau’s loving effort and tireless attitude in helping the disadvantaged children to learn;

(d) Neighbour Ms Wong: Ms Wong has known Ms Lau for more than 20 years and asks for a lenient sentence on her behalf; Ms Lau is a person full of love and has been passionate in her teaching job; Ms Lau has in the past paid visits to Old People’s Home; Ms Lau has voluntarily taught senior citizens, newly-arrived children, women, and South Asian people for 10 years; since 2010, debt-collectors came to Ms Lau’s home to chase for her younger brother’s debts; if the offences relating to the use of her ineffective teacher’s certificate when working as supply teacher (Charges 1 & 2) had been dealt with at the same time as those previous offences for which she was sentenced in August 2017, then she would not have suffered the unnecessary stress since her last discharge from prison in January 2018; Ms Wong wants the court to know that whereas the Education Bureau reported the case to police in January 2017, the police did not make enquires of Ms Lau until 2 days before her previous discharge; that Ms Lau is remorseful for what she had done to the court (Charge 7) schools (Charges 1 & 2) and parents (Charges 3 & 5) and besides, the schools had not suffered any loss;

(e) Inmate Ms Chan of Tai Hang (sic): Ms Chan has been a fellow inmate with Ms Lau for one year; she asks for a lenient sentence for Ms Lau; Ms Lau is a responsible, truthful, reliable and a loving person; she is a helpful and generous person; she often worries about her grandmother and parents to the point of weeping; Ms Lau’s proudest achievement was being able to become a teacher, yet regrettably the same ambition was destroyed by herself, only because her sense was clouded by family problems; Ms Lau wishes to contribute to society and succeed in another aspect using her knowledge and aspiration;

(f) Pastor Poon of Prison Pastoral service: Pastor Poon met Ms Lau in Tai Lam; found Ms Lau to have been a passionate primary school teacher; because of the need to repay younger brother’s gambling debts, Ms Lau over-worked by taking up part-time private tutoring resulting in her losing her senses and committing the offences; she kept blaming herself for her grandmother’s deterioration of health; she promised to stop repaying younger brother’s debts;

(g) Father Fung of Don Bosco: Father Fung wrote because of a request letter from Ms Lau (no doubt providing the details of her background); Ms Lau graduated in 2007 from Education Institute; she was diagnosed in 2012 with psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms; she committed the offences out of psychosis and great psychological pressure;

(h) Father Wotherspoon: he asks that Ms Lau’s psychiatric report be taken into account; that he would be willing to assist if Ms Lau was sentenced to CSO;

(i) District Councillor Chu: Chu met Ms Lau in an official visit to prison and found that she was filial pious to grandmother and parents and wished for an early end of the case; and

(j) Ms Lau herself: she has been under remand since 20 August 2018, for almost 22 months; she has been emotionally unsettled and regretful, living in pain; she kept self-reprimanding herself; she felt regretful towards the High Court Judge (Charge 7), the schools (Charges 1 & 2) and parents (Charges 3 & 5) and asked for forgiveness from them; for 10 years, she has been suffering the ordeal caused by family problems; the ordeal of psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms was made worse by her failure to take remedial medicine; she did not take remedial medicine for fear that it might make her sleepy and tired thus frustrating her wish to work for the extra money for her family; she attributed her offending to hearing voices telling her to use ineffective teacher certificate (Charges 1 & 2) and to lie to parents that she was a working teacher (Charges 3 & 5) and to lie to the High Court Judge (Charge 7); she alleged that these voices made her feel compulsive and her ability to control herself became less; her depression and anxiety became more severe; for these 22 months she had been in custody, she was worried about the health conditions of her grandmother and parents, and about the potential harm her parents might receive because of his younger brother’s debt problem; she promises in future to attend medical appointments and to take medicine and to follow the instructions of psychiatrist with a view to eliminating the emergence and influence of the “voice”; that she has made a declaration to break up the relationship between herself and her brother and she will not again repay her younger brother’s debt; after release, she will together with her mother move away from home such that her younger brother will not be able to find them; she will seek help from Pastor Poon on release and promises not to re-offend.

45.  Mr Khattak submitted 4 medical reports respectively dated 20.5.2019, 16.7.2019, 7.1.2020 and 28.5.2020 all written by Dr Bonnie Siu.  I shall name them in that order 1^st, 2rd, 3^rd and 4^th reports.

46.  The 1^st report is the longest and contains a lengthy history of Ms Lau’s psychotic development since 2012.  The 1^st report also contains Ms Lau’s account on the index offences which were repeated with expansion in her mitigation letter to the court.  What is most valuable from the 1^st report is the recent mental state examination which showed that Ms Lau’s speech was relevant and coherent; that her mood was worried; that she got residual obsessive compulsive symptoms.  Dr Siu’s opinion in the 1^st report was that Ms Lau had been suffering from psychosis with obsessive-compulsive symptoms and personality problems; that Ms Lau was noticed to give inconsistent accounts on her psychotic symptoms as well as on her compliance to psychiatric medications; that the latest mental state examination revealed that she was mentally stable.

47.  The 2^nd report contained some old and new findings.  The new findings included that Ms Lau’s psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms were of moderate severity; that the psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms were precipitated by her stressors including her legal and family issues and perpetrated by her unsatisfactory compliance to psychiatric medications despite repeated advices were given to her on the importance of psychiatric medications compliance.  Her committing of the index offences was probably not only related to her psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms but also her personality problems which were persistent and pervasive.  Again, Ms Lau was noticed to give inconsistent accounts on her psychotic symptoms as well as her compliance to psychiatric medications.

48.  The 3^rd report again contained some old and new observations.  The new observations included that Ms Lau’s medications had been increased in the recent months as she could not sleep well and she mentioned that she was worried about the potential sentence and she expressed that she continued to hear the voices.  Dr Siu opined that Ms Lau had been having personality problems as she was noticed to give inconsistent accounts on her psychotic symptoms as well as on her compliance to psychiatric medications, and she committed similar offences repeatedly despite being convicted and sentenced for various times before.

49.  The 4^th report was compiled at the repeated requests of Ms Lau’s solicitors made in April and May 2020 and followed a latest examination of Ms Lau on 20 May 2020 by Dr Siu.  At the examination, Ms Lau said that her mental condition had been improved with decreased frequency and duration of voices.  Ms Lau said that she was worried about the outcome of her court hearing and she expressed having fair sleep and conflicts with some of the inmates in Tai Lam.  Ms Lau’s mental condition was largely stable and there had been no recent change of her psychiatric medications since the last increase in December 2019.  Dr Siu repeated her opinion that Ms Lau’s commission of the index offences was probably not only related to her psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms but also her personality problems which were persistent and pervasive.  Ms Lau has not been diagnosed to have depression or anxiety disorder.  She still got residual obsessive compulsive symptoms such as repeatedly asking questions with a need for reassurance and she needed others to comply with her wish.  Ms Lau is recommended to continue to attend psychiatric outpatient clinic for follow-up treatments.

50.  Mr Khattak summed up the mitigation by 8 points as follows:-

(a) Ms Lau did not collect the two amounts from the schools;

(b) Ms Lau suffered from the time of arrest in March 2018 and from the time bail was revoked in August 2018;

(c) There has been a degree of delay in prosecution and investigation etc;

(d) The false letter (Charge 7) was motivated by the wish to travel to Mainland for liver transplant; in any event the attempt to obtain bail failed;

(e) Ms Lau pleaded guilty;

(f) Ms Lau has been in custody for about 22 months;

(g) Ask to take into account totality of Charges 1 & 2 with those offences that were dealt with in August 2017; and

(h) Ask for a custodial sentence which would allow immediate release and reform.

51.  When invited by the court to make submissions on how the sentencing judge had dealt with Ms Lau and her mitigation in the last case viz DCCC 690/2016, Mr Khattak sought to distinguish that case from the present one in two respects:-

(a) The offences dealt with there were more serious in terms of amounts involved; though Charges 1 & 2 involve large sums, they were not collected; and

(b) For the present case, Dr Bonnie Siu opined that the commission of the offences was at least partly related to psychosis and obsessive compulsive symptoms.

52.  Again responding to an invitation by the court regarding the defence allegation of delay, Mr Khattak acknowledged that Ms Lau remained silent under caution but submitted that she was exercising her right and that she did nothing to mislead the prosecution or give out excuses.  Mr Khattak submitted that Charges 1 & 2 of Fraud are simple cases and there should be no need to take statements from the relevant witnesses PW2 & 3 again and again.

53.  Mr Khattak urged the court not to enhance the starting point of sentence on the same grounds that he relied to distinguish the present case from DCCC 690/2016.

Prosecution’s reply on the allegation of delay in prosecution

54.  By permission of the court, prosecution submitted that there has been no unreasonable delay; that Ms Lau was arrested and interviewed for Charges 1 & 2 on 9 January 2018; that was likely to be the first time she came to know she was under investigation by the police; she was then charged only 1 year later on 25 January 2019 with Charges 1 & 2.

Mitigation (continued)

55.  Mr Khattak accepted what the prosecution said but re-emphasized the simplicity of the offences and facts.

Sentence

56.  I have considered the mitigation submissions including the contents of all 4 medical reports written by Dr Bonnie Siu and of the mitigation letters.

57.  I was informed by the prosecution that Charges 1 & 2 were committed while Ms Lau was jumping police bail for an old case.

58.  I do not accept that the reason that Ms Lau did not collect the payments for Charges 1 & 2 was she decided not to out of remorse.  For Charge 1, although she worked at the school only till 17 March 2016, she did return to the school on 4 May 2016 to show them a copy of her (ineffective) teacher registration certificate.  This shows her lack of remorse even as late as that date.  On 14 May 2016, she was placed in remand custody for the last case (DCCC 690/2016).  The incarceration is the most likely explanation for her becoming out of reach and her failure to pick up the paycheck.  For Charge 2, the last day she worked at that school was 12 May 2016.  She was remanded in custody 2 days later thus explaining her failure to collect payment assuming payment was offered.

59.  I have examined the time chart prepared by the defence (pages 1-3 of the written mitigation submissions) and the reply Chronology prepared by the prosecution.  I am satisfied that there was no unreasonable delay in prosecution or investigation.  The first time Ms Lau knew about a police investigation into Charges 1 and 2 appeared to be 9 January 2018 and she was then charged about 1 year later.  She only had to wait about a year before she realized the outcome of the investigation.  The corresponding waiting time for Charges 3, 5 & 7 was even shorter.  In this respect, I would only add that there has been no diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder in Ms Lau.  In this connection, all that was said in the medical reports was that she said she was worried about the outcome in the forthcoming court hearing.  There is no merit in the submission of delay in prosecution etc.

60.  Regarding Dr Siu’s opinion that Ms Lau’s commission of the index offences was probably not only related to her psychosis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms but also her personality problems which were persistent and pervasive, I note that Dr Siu used the word “probably”.  Dr Siu also reported that Ms Lau was noticed to give inconsistent accounts on her psychotic symptoms as well as on her compliance to psychiatric medications. Given that Dr Siu must have relied to some extent on Ms Lau’s accounts of her own psychotic symptoms in giving that opinion, and the use of the word “probably”, and the caveat of adding “persistent and pervasive personality problems” as a probable cause of the commission of the offences, I can give no more than little weight to Ms Lau’s mental problem as a probable reason for the commission of the offences.

61.  Incidentally, when sentencing Ms Lau in August 2017 for DCCC 690/2016, and with the benefit of psychiatrist’s report, Deputy Judge Lin (as he then was) rejected any suggestion that the offences that he was dealing with were driven by mental illness (paras 25 & 27 of the Reasons for Sentence).  Among the offences that he was dealing with was an offence committed on 8 May 2016 ie round about the time Charges 1 & 2 of this case were committed.

62.  I respectfully agree with His Honour’s comments in para 27 of his Reasons for Sentence that Ms Lau had used up the court’s sympathy in her persistent re-offending.  I therefore, like His Honour before me, find it difficult to temper justice with mercy on the basis of Ms Lau’s psychotic history and poor family background.

63.  Some of the mitigation letters to some extent sought to explain why the offences were committed.  Apart from a few which could claim to have independent information from the authors, much of what was contained in them was sourced from Ms Lau.  I found the letter signed by one neighbour Ms Wong, worthy of mention.  It was a typed letter – I found it extraordinary that it was written like a piece of written submissions.  She wrote to the following effects:-

“if the offences relating to the use of her ineffective teacher’s certificate when working as supply teacher [Charges 1 & 2] had been dealt with at the same time as those previous offences for which she was sentenced in August 2017, then she would not have suffered the unnecessary stress since her last discharge from prison in January 2018; Ms Wong wants the court to know that whereas the Education Bureau reported the case to police in January 2017, the police did not make enquires of Ms Lau until 2 days before her previous discharge; that Ms Lau is remorseful for what she had done to the court [Charge 7], schools [Charges 1 & 2] and parents [Charges 3 & 5] and besides, the schools had not suffered any loss.”

64.  What Ms Wong wrote supplied the basis for Mr Khattak’s submissions of “totality” and “delay in prosecution etc”.  It is extraordinary that a neighbour could be so cognizant of the various dates and particulars of what had happened.

65.  Although I have doubts about who is the real author behind this letter, I will not hold it against Ms Lau when sentencing.

66.  I do not accept Mr Khattak’s submission that the amount involved in the present charges is less than those in DCCC 690/2016. Charges 1 & 2 involve amounts which, though uncollected, are substantial as compared with those in DCCC690/2016.

67.  There is obviously a degree of planning in all 5 charges of which Ms Lau has been convicted.  Charge 7 is particularly serious as the potential victim was a High Court Judge.  A motive of enabling oneself to go over to the Mainland for the purpose of a liver transplant to her grandmother is no excuse.

68.  For Charges 1 & 2 of Fraud, the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.  There are no sentencing guidelines. Because of the substantial degree of planning and the commission of these offences while on police bail for the previous case, I will adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for each.  Ms Lau is clearly an unrepentant recidivist after the first 2 series of similar convictions in 2013 and 2015, I shall enhance the starting point by 3 months to 2 years and 3 months.

69.  For Charges 3 & 5 of Theft, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.  There are no sentencing guidelines.  These two offences were committed less than 2 months post-release for the previous case (DCCC 690/2016) and post-arrest for offences subject of Charges 1 & 2 (though it’s unclear whether she was on police bail for these offences) and again Ms Lau was a recidivist after the 3 previous series (including DCCC 690/2016) of similar convictions.  Taking all these matters into consideration, and with reference to the Reasons for Sentence for DCCC 690/2016, I will adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months for each of the two charges.

70.  For Charge 7 of Perverting the course of justice, the penalty is imprisonment for any term and a fine of any amount (section 101I of Cap 221).  There are no sentencing guidelines.  Ms Lau’s commission of this offence involved the use of a false instrument which is itself an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.  After reminding myself of the authority of HKSAR v Brian Alfred Hall [2013] 5 HKC 202, and noting that case was far more serious than the present case, I will adopt the starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment here.

71.  For her early indication of pleas which she has materialized, I shall give Ms Lau the full 1/3 discount.  I do not see any other grounds of mitigation justifying any further discount.

72.  For Charges 1 & 2, the sentence for each is therefore 18 months’ imprisonment.

73.  For Charges 3 & 5, the sentence for each is therefore 18 months’ imprisonment.

74.  For Charge 7, the sentence is therefore 26 months’ imprisonment.

75.  Mr Khattak asked the court to consider totality in relation to Charges 1 & 2 together with the overall sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment imposed in DCCC 690/2016.  The difficulty is of course that that sentence has already been completely served by Ms Lau by January 2018.  Nonetheless, I am willing to give some thought to the matter so as to reduce the grievance Ms Lau might otherwise have because afterall the offences subject of Charges 1 & 2 were committed round about the time of some of the offences subject of DCCC 690/2016.

76.  I adjudge that if Charges 1 & 2 had been dealt with together with DCCC 690/2016, the overall sentence would have been 38 months’ imprisonment.  Therefore, I shall order that an overall sentence of 8 months should come out of Charges 1 & 2 as a group.

77.  Charges 3 & 5 arose out of the same incident, I shall make their sentences run wholly concurrently with each other.

(Ms Lau, please stand)

78.  Considering totality for the present case, I adjudge that an overall sentence after plea of 3 years and 3 months will meet the justice of the case.

79.  Charge 7 carries the heaviest sentence of 26 months, so I shall start with that.  I order that 4 months of the sentence for Charge 1 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 7; making a provisional total of 30 months.  Next, I order that 4 months of the sentence for Charge 2 to run consecutively to the previous total of 30 months, making 34 months.  Finally, I order that 5 months of the sentences for Charges 3 & 5 to run consecutively to the previous total, making an overall sentence of 39 months or 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.