HKSAR v. Cho Ka Yeung

DCCC 380/2021

[2021] HKDC 1450

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 380 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 13 counts of theft (Charges 1 to 5 and 7 to 14), one count of attempted theft (Charge 6)  and one count of going equipped for stealing (Charge 15).

ADMITTED SUMMARY OF FACTS

2.The Summary of Facts admitted by the Defendant are as follows:-

Charge 1: Theft

(1)  At around 8 pm on 17 September 2020, Mr Cheng Ngai parked his private car bearing registration number MH 3337 at Parking Space No 742 of the car park in Ping Wui Centre, Nos 13-17 Ping Wui Street, Yuen Long, New Territories (the Car Park)  and left. When he returned to the car at around 8:30 am the following day, he discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and property belonging to him, namely cash of about HK$100 and one iPhone (valued at HK$1,000), were missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$3,000. CCTV captured the Defendant approaching the car and tampering with the car before leaning into the car window between 2:37 am and 2:41 am on 18 September 2020.

(2)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He entered the Car Park randomly and saw money inside the car. He wore a black glove on his hand and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and stole some cash and one iPhone from the car. He had used up the money and thrown the iPhone into a rubbish bin as it was locked. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 2: Theft

(3)  Case was reported in relation to a missing rucksack from a private car bearing registration WB 719 that was parked at Parking Space No 1005 in the Car Park. Upon arrival of police officers, the rucksack was recovered from a rubbish bin in the Car Park. CCTV captured the Defendant approaching the car and tampering with it before taking a bag from the car between 2:26 am and 2:27 am on 18 September 2020.

(4)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He smashed the window next to where a bag was placed in the car. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 3: Theft

(5)  At around 7:35 pm on 23 September 2020, Mr Yuen Chun-shing parked his private car bearing registration TW 9600 at parking Space No 170 of the Car Park and left. When he returned to the car at around 5:30 am the following day, he discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and cash of HK$700 belonging to him had gone missing. The cost of repair was HK$5,000. CCTV captured the Defendant standing near the car and looking into it while holding a tool at around 4:34 am on 24 September 2020 and walking away about a minute later, the left front window of the car had been smashed and its hazard lights were flashing.

(6)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He walked past the Car Park on his way to the ground floor from the podium of Long Ping Estate and saw money inside the car. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and stole some cash from the car. He had used up the money at a game arcade on the same day. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 4:Theft

(7)  At around 2 am on 25 September 2020, Mr Cheung Kam-wah parked his private car bearing registration number WB 3669 at Parking Space 128 in the car park of Tin Chung Court, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories, in Hong Kong and left. When he returned at around 10 am on the same day, he discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and his GUCCI wallet (valued at HK$2,000)  containing the following items was missing from the car: cash of HK$13,000, his Hong Kong Identity Card, His Home Visit Permit, his Driver’s licence, 5 credit cards and 3 ATM cards. Car camera of the car captured the Defendant wandering around in the car park between 5:13 am and 5:32 am on 25 September 2020, at around 5:33 am, there was some crushing sounds and the Defendant was walking away from the car.

(8)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He was wandering around that night and saw the wallet inside the car. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and stole the wallet from the car. He only took the cash in the wallet, there was about HK$3,000-$4,000, and he threw away the wallet with its contents at the rear staircase of the car park. He had spent all the money on food and playing games at a game arcade. He was the person captured by the car camera.

Charge 5: Theft

(9)  At around 9:30 pm on 30 September 2020, Ms Tse Kit-man, Kitman parked her private car bearing registration number UG 314 at Parking Space No 627 in the Car Park and left. At around 7:35 am on 3 October 2020, security guard of Ping Wui Centre discovered that the window of the two cars parked at parking Spaces No 626 and 627 respectively were smashed. Case was reported and Ms Tse was notified. Upon returning to her car, Ms Tse discovered that the left front window of her car was smashed and cash of HK$110 belonging to her had gone missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$4,300. CCTV captured the Defendant approaching the cars at around 4:08 am on 3 October 2020 and lingering near Ms Tse’s car and the other car between 4:18 am and 4:23 am

(10)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from Ms Tse’s car. He broke the window of the car with an automatic centre punch wearing a glove and took property therefrom. He had spent the money he stole on food. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 6: Attempted Theft

(11)  At around 5:30 pm on 1 October 2020, Mr Fung Kwok-po, Edmund parked his private car bearing registration number LG 7834 at Parking Space 626 in the Car Park and left. On 3 October 2020, Mr Fung was informed by the security guard of Ping Wui Centre that the window of his car was smashed. Upon returning to his car, Mr Fung discovered that the right front window of his car was smashed and there were signs of ransacking in the car, but nothing was missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$1,000. CCTV captured the Defendant approaching the cars in the Car Park at around 4:08 am on 3 October 2020 before walking to the right of Mr Fung’s car at around 4:13 am and lingering around between 4:18 am and 4:23 am.

(12)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he broke the window of the car with an automatic centre punch while wearing a glove but he did not take anything from the car because there were no valuables. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 7: Theft

(13)  At around 2:30 pm on 4 October 2020, Mr Lo Kam-wing parked a private car bearing registration number PY 8283 at Parking Space 147 in the car park of Long Ping Estate, Yuen Long, New Territories in Hong Kong and left. When he returned to the car at around 7:30 am the following day, he discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and a rucksack (valued at HK$200)  containing two laser rangefinders (valued at HK$5,000), property belonging to Shun Lee Hoisting Limited, the company he worked for, were missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$1,000.

(14)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He was wandering around that night and saw a rucksack inside the car. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and took the rucksack from the car. He threw away the rucksack with its contents because he found them worthless.

Charges 8-9: Theft

(15)  At around 4 pm on 5 October 2020, Mr Wong Chi-hung parked his light goods vehicle (LGV)  bearing registration number NB 653 at Parking Space RP2 in the car park of Tin Yuet Estate, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories in Hong Kong and left. When he returned to the LGV at around 6:30 am the following day, he discovered that the left front window of the LGV was smashed and a transparent plastic box containing cash of HK$200, property belonging to him, was missing from the LGV. The cost of repair was around HK$1,000. Case was reported.

(16)  At around 8:30 pm on 5 October 2020, Mr Ma Kin-sang parked his private car bearing registration number VH 375 at Parking Space 2P2 at the same car park and left. At around 7:03 am the following day, he was informed by the police that the window of his car was smashed. He then returned to his car and discovered that the right rear window of the car was smashed and a rucksack containing the following items belonging to him were missing from the car: one clamp meter (valued at HK$1,000), one refrigerant gauge (valued at HK$1,600), one thermometer (valued at HK$1,000), 3 spanners (valued at HK$400)  and two pairs of pliers (valued at HK$300). The cost of repair was HK$4,000.

(17)  CCTV captured the Defendant wandering around in the car park, shining a torch and looking into cars parked thereat at around 4:07 am on 6 October 2020.

(18)  Subsequently at a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he saw money inside the vehicles so he used an automatic centre punch to smash the window. He wore a glove to protect his hand. He took the cash and put it in his own rucksack, he had already spent the money on food and rent. He threw away the plastic box and the rucksack he stole with its contents because they were useless to him. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 10: Theft

(19)  At around 11 pm on 6 October 2020, Mr Ho Chin-yi parked his private car bearing registration number ST 941 at Parking Space 502 in the car park of Tin Heng Estate, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories in Hong Kong and left. At around 6:22 am the following day, he was informed by the security officer of the car park that the window of the car was smashed. He returned to the car and discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and a car camera (valued at HK$3,000)  belonging to him had gone missing. The cost of repair was HK$5,000. CCTV captured the Defendant wandering in the car park, shining a torch and looking into cars parked thereat at around 4:56 am on 7 October 2020.

(20)  Subsequently in a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and took the car camera from the car. He threw away the car camera somewhere in Tin Shui Wai. He was the person captured by the CCTV.

Charge 11: Theft

(21)  At around 2 am on 9 October 2020, Mr Yip Chi-hung parked his private car bearing registration number JD 3312 outside Tin Shui Wai (Tin Yip Road)  Community Health Centre, No 3 Tin Yip Road, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories in Hong Kong and left. When he returned at around 8:45 am on the same day, he discovered that the left front window of the car was smashed and cash of HK$50 was missing. The cost of repair was about HK$3,000.

(22)  Subsequently in a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the car. He walked past the car and saw money inside. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window and took cash of HK$50 from the car. He had spent the money already.

Charges 12-14: Theft

(23)  At around 11:30 pm on 8 October 2020, Mr Yeung Hon-man parked his private car bearing registration number UJ 5108 at Parking Space 4027 in the car park of Tin Fu Court, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories in Hong Kong and left.

(24)  At around 12:30 am on 9 October 2020, Mr Lau Moon-hong parked his private car bearing registration number UW 940 at Parking Space 5032 at the same car park and left.

(25)  At around 12:45 am on 9 October 2020, Mr Yam Kit-chung parked his private car bearing registration number WD 9057 at Parking Space 5112 at the same car park and left.

(26)  At around 7:30 am on 9 October 2020, security guard of the car park discovered that the window of the three cars had been smashed. Case was reported and the owners of the cars were notified.

(27)  Mr Yeung discovered that both of the windows of the front doors of his car were smashed and the following items belonging to him were missing from the car: cash HK$30 and one bag (valued at HK$100)  containing 5 pairs of pliers and 6 screwdrivers (valued at HK$2,000). The cost of repair was HK$900.

(28)  Mr Lai discovered that the right front window of his car was smashed and cash of about HK$250 and one Octopus card (with a remaining value of HK$170)  belonging to him were missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$1,000.

(29)  Mr Yam discovered that the left front window of his car was smashed and cash of HK$120 belonging to him was missing from the car. The cost of repair was HK$1,500.

(30)  CCTV captured the Defendant walking in the car park at around 4:42 am on 9 October 2020.

(31)  Subsequently in a video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted under caution, inter alia, that he stole from the three cars. He wore a glove and used an automatic centre punch to smash the window of the cars. He stole money inside the cars and he had already spent the money on food. He had already thrown away the bag and the Octopus card.

Charge 15: Going Equipped for Stealing

(32)  At around 1:50 am on 10 October 2020, police officers in plain clothes were deployed to the car park in Long Ping Estate, Yuen Long, New Territories in Hong Kong. PC 19517 and PC 21242 were viewing the CCTV footage in the control room when they observed the Defendant lingering between cars in the car park suspiciously. PC 19517 and PC 21242 went to intercept the Defendant. At around 2:41 am, PC 19517 saw the Defendant standing next to the passenger side of a private car and peeping into the car. The Defendant was holding a glove with both of his hands. The Defendant was intercepted by PC 19517 outside Parking Space 26.

(33)  Upon search, the following items were found: one glove, one pair of pliers in the Defendant’s back right trousers pocket and one automatic centre punch and one torch in the black cross-body bag carried by the Defendant.

(34)  The Defendant was then arrested.

(35)  House search was conducted at the Defendant’s home, two black T-shirts and one pair of black shoes were seized. The clothes the Defendant was wearing upon his arrest, namely a white T-shirt, one pair of camouflage shorts and white shoes, were also seized. Under caution, the Defendant admitted that those were the clothes he wore when he was stealing.

(36)  The total value of the stolen properties was HK$32,430, only one rucksack has been recovered.

THE DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND

3.The Defendant is 42 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong and was educated to secondary level.  He was married but is separated from his wife.  He has two sons, aged 16 and 13 and the Defendant is responsible for the children’s expenses.  He is living with his mother (who is retired)  and his elder brother (a butcher).  Prior to his arrest, the Defendant worked in various industries earning around HK$15,000 per month.

4.The Defendant has an appalling record.  He has 10 previous convictions, involving 24 charges, 18 of which are related to dishonesty.  There is no dispute that he committed the present offences shortly after his release from prison in September 2020.

DISCUSSION

Theft from Vehicle

5.Counsel accepted that the Defendant has an appalling record.  He also committed the present offences shortly after he was released from prison in September 2020.  However, he submitted that the Defendant committed the present offences as a result of financial stress.  He also urged the Court to consider:-

(1)  The Defendant’s timely plea;

(2)  The fact that the Defendant committed the offences alone;

(3)  The Defendant has fully co-operated with the police and made full admission to the charges (Charges 1 to 14 being based mostly upon the Defendant’s admissions); and

(4)  The totality principle.

6.There are no sentencing guidelines for theft from vehicles.

7.Counsel referred the Court to a number of cases as reference, namely HKSAR v Wan Hon-keung, Hony DCCC 892/2015, HKSAR v Choi Keng Pun DCCC 464/2015, HKSAR v Yu Kwok Yung & anor DCCC 1243/2010, HKSAR v Yuen Ka Kui & Or DCCC 415/2020 and HKSAR v Li Ho Yin CACC 240/2012.  Unfortunately, the Court was not provided with copies of all the above-mentioned cases.

8.In Wan Hon-keung, Hony, the defendant faced 11 counts of theft.  He pleaded guilty to 6 charges, the remaining charges were left on file.  The defendant admitted that between 14 February and 7 July 2015, he smashed the windows of 6 cars with a stone to steal.  The 1^st and 2^nd charges took place on the same day, as did the 8^th and 10^th charges.  The defendant was 47 years old and had stopped working because of health reasons.  He had 8 previous convictions, involving 15 offences, 6 of which were identical to the charge he was facing.  Although his last conviction was 15 years ago, the learned deputy judge was of the view that the defendant was a recidivist with respect to the offence of theft from vehicle.  The learned judge ruled that having regard to the losses suffered by the various car owners, the inconvenience that must have been occasions to them, the multiplicity of offences and all the circumstances of the case, the proper overall starting point should be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  He adopted a nominal starting point of 18 months for each offence.  The defendant pleaded guilty and was given the full one third discount, reducing the sentence on each charge to 12 months’ imprisonment.  Further, the learned judge accepted that but for the defendant’s admission, there might not have been sufficient evidence to prosecute him with the charges other than the 5^th charge.  He therefore reduced the starting point by 2 months.  He also ordered that the sentence for the 1^st and 2^nd charges to be served concurrently, the sentences for the 3^rd and 5^th charges to be served concurrently and the sentences for the 8^th and 10^th charges to be served concurrently.  However, 4 months of the concurrent sentence in respect of the 3^rd and 5^th charges are to be served consecutively to the concurrent sentences for the 1^st and 2^nd charges and 2 months of the concurrent sentence in respect of the 8^th and 10^th charges to be served consecutively to the combined sentence for the rest of the charges, making a total sentence of 18 months.

9.In Choi Keng-pun, the defendant pleaded guilty to 6 charges of theft and 1 count of possession of dangerous drugs.  All 6 charges of theft involved theft from taxis, whose drivers were either cleaning the taxi or tidying the trunk.  No tools or equipment were used.  The defendant was caught after he was captured on a car camera of a passing car when he was committing the 3^rd charge.  He then made admissions in respect of the 5 other theft charges.  The defendant was 47 years old.  He had 23 previous convictions, 16 of which were related to theft.  He also had 2 previous convictions for burglary.  His last conviction was in May 2013.  The learned deputy judge pointed out that the defendant had committed multiple offences within the space of 7 months.  The learned judge adopted a starting point of 15 months for each of the theft charges, which was reduced to 10 months for the defendant’s guilty plea.  In addition, the court was of the view that apart from charge 3, there may not have been sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant without his admissions.  The sentence for each charge was further reduced to 9 months’ imprisonment.  The learned judge further ordered that 2 months for the sentence in charges 2 to 6 shall be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 1 (ie a total of 19 months’ imprisonment for the 6 theft charges).  The 4-month sentence for the drug charge was to be served wholly consecutively to the theft charges, making a total sentence of 23 months.

10.In Yu Kwok Yung, the defendant pleaded guilty to 19 charges of theft and 1 count of attempted theft.  The offences in question are the type commonly referred to as “theft from vehicle” and took place between 25 January and 20 July 2010.  The defendant smashed the windows of vehicle and stole from them.  His commission of the offences was captured by the CCTV cameras in the car parks.  The defendant admitted all the offences after his arrest.  The defendant was 33 years old, single.  He stated that he committed the offences out of financial need.  He had 20 previous convictions, 10 of which were theft related, 6 being offences of theft from vehicles.  His last conviction was on 5 August 2009 for theft from vehicle, for which he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.  The Court found that the defendant was a persistent offender and that save for his guilty plea, there were no mitigating factors.  The learned deputy judge adopted a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment, which was reduced to 6 months for the guilty plea.  After taking into account the totality principle, the learned judge sentenced the defendant to 30 months’ imprisonment.

11.In Yuen Ka-kui, the Defendant pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft (Charges 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 18), one charge of driving without a valid driving licence, 1 charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance and 1 charge of possession of dangerous drugs.  For the first charge, the defendant stole 2 hydraulic supporters from a truck that was parked on the street.  In Charge 2, the defendant stole from a motor cycle.  There was nothing in the summary of facts to suggest that the defendant broke into these vehicles.  In Charge 3, the owner of the motor vehicle left his keys in the ignition of the motor cycle and the set of keys together with an Octopus card on the key chain were stolen.  Subsequently, the Octopus card was used by the defendant.  The windows of the vehicles in Charges 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 18 were shattered.  In Charge 13, a motorcycle was stolen.  The learned judge adopted a starting point of 12 months for Charge 1, 9 months for each of Charges 2-5, 7, 8, 11 and 18.  In the end, the judge sentenced D1 to an overall sentence of 2 years and 7 months.

12.Firstly, the cases cited by Counsel are at District Court level and are not binding on this Court.  Further, there are marked differences between the present case and some of the cases cited by Counsel:-

(1)  In Wan Hon-keung, the 6 charges of which the defendant was convicted were committed within 7 months. In Choi Keng-pun, the defendant committed 6 charges within 7 months. In Yu Kwok-yung, the defendant committed 19 charges within the space of 7 months. In the present case, the Defendant committed 13 charges within the space of 3 weeks. In fact, save for the few days from 26 September 2020 to 2 October 2020, the Defendant in the present case committed at least one offence every day;

(2)  In Wan Hon-keung, the defendant used a stone to smash the car windows which were parked on the street. There was no evidence of identification if the Defendant had not admitted to the 5 out of 6 charges. In Choi Keng-pun, the defendant stole from taxis which were parked on the street. His commission of one of the charges was caught on camera by a passing car. Again, without his admissions, the prosecution would not have sufficient evidence to proceed with the remaining 5 charges. In the present case, the Defendant targeted cars parked in car parks and his crimes were all recorded by CCTV;

(3)  In Wan Hon-keung, the defendant used a stone to smash the car windows. In Choi Keng-pun, the defendant preyed on taxi drivers who were cleaning their cars. The thefts were opportunistic. In the present case, the Defendant was equipped to steal from cars. He had an automatic centre punch and was able to smash the windows of 2 cars within a minute. He was clearly a professional and the offences were clearly premeditated;

(4)  In Wan Hon-keung, the defendant stole from cars that were parked on the street. Had he not made admissions to the police, there would not be any evidence to prosecute him for the 5 out of 6 charges of which he stood convicted;

(5)  In Wan Hon-keung, the defendant had 8 previous convictions, involving 15 offences, 6 of which were identical to the charges he was facing. However, he had been out of trouble for 15 years. In the present case, the Defendant committed the present offences as soon as he was discharged from prison for identical offences.

13.It is quite clear that the facts of the present case are more serious than those in Wan Hon-keung and Choi Keng-pun.  Having considered the facts of this case, the cases cited by Counsel and the submissions in mitigation, I adopt a notional starting point of 15 months for each of the charges.

Going Equipped

14.There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence.  Counsel referred the Court to Li Ho-yin CACC 240/2012.  In that case, the defendant was charged with going equipped for stealing (Charge 1)  and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Charge 2).  The prosecution case was that at 6 am on 28 December 2011, a domestic helper in a first floor flat was awakened by the sound of her window being opened.  She saw the appellant and screamed.  The appellant turned and ran.  The helper alerted her employer, who in turn alerted the watchman and police patrolling nearby.  The employer discovered the appellant standing on top of an air-conditioner cooling unit.  The appellant however eluded the employer and the watchman, pushing the latter to the floor in the process.  He was eventually subdued by the police, dropping a crowbar and a pair of gloves during a struggle.  The judge sentenced the appellant to a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.  The judge took a starting point of 2 ½ years for Charge 1.  The Court of Appeal held that the factors to be considered by the sentencing court included the circumstances in which the defendant was apprehended, the nature of the equipment carried, the nature of the defendant, his record (if any), the commission of other offences at the same time as the subject offence, and the principle of totality.  The Court found the starting point of 2 ½ years wholly justified.

15.In the present case, the Defendant was clearly targeting several car parks in the area.  He had already committed a string of theft from vehicle offences prior to the going equipped charge.  As a result, police officers were deployed to a car park for investigation.  The Defendant was seen lingering between cars in the car park.  When he was intercepted, the Defendant was standing next to the passenger side of a private car and peeping into the car.  He was holding a glove in both of his hands.  He had gloves, pliers and an automatic center punch on him and was clearly intending to commit another theft from vehicle, although he appeared to be still in the process of searching for a target.  The nature of the Defendant was that he was a professional thief who steals from vehicles.  The subject offence was committed as soon as he was discharged from prison for a string of offences, including 4 offences for theft from vehicles.

16.I am satisfied that the proper starting point for this charge is 2 years’ imprisonment.

PERSISTENT OFFENDER

17.The Defendant has 10 previous convictions, involving 24 charges, 18 of which are related to dishonesty, including 5 previous convictions for theft from vehicle and 2 previous convictions for going equipped.  His last conviction was for possession of an identity card relating to another person, 4 charges of theft from vehicle and assaulting a police officer on 5 December 2019, for which he was sentenced to a total of 14 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.  He was discharged from prison in September 2020.  He immediately went on to commit 15 offences within a space of 3 weeks.  He is obviously an incorrigible persistent offender, on whom the previous sentences have had no deterrent effect.  In those circumstances, the starting points for each of the charges will be enhanced by 6 months, ie a starting point of 21 months for each of the theft and the attempted theft charges (Charges 1-14)  and 2 ½ years for the charge of going equipped (Charge 15).  

18.The Defendant has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and is entitled to the full one third discount.  Apart from his guilty pleas, there are no other mitigating factors.  The sentences for each of Charges 1 to 14 are reduced to 14 months.  The sentence for Charge 15 is reduced to 20 months.

TOTALITY

19.Apart from Charges 1 and 2, Charges 11-14, the remaining charges were committed on different dates.  The venues were different and the victims for each of the charges were different.  Technically, the sentences should be consecutive.  However, the Court is required to consider totality.  I am satisfied that an overall starting point of 45 months (3 years and 9 months)  would be appropriate.  I order that the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 be served concurrently, the sentences for Charges 5 to 14 be served concurrently, but 6 months of which be served consecutively to Charges 1 to 4 (ie a total of 20 months).  10 months of the sentence for Charge 15 to be served consecutively to the overall sentence for Charges 1 to 14, ie a total of 30 months’ imprisonment.