- 23 -
60. Thirdly, we are prepared to accept that D3 might have been misled by D1 as to the lawfulness of the Scheme: R v Rahman [2008] EWCA Crim 1465. For this factor, we grant D3 a deduction of 3 months, thus reducing the sentence to 7 years and 3 months’ (87 months) imprisonment.
61. Lastly, there are mitigation letters (written by D3’s family members, friends and residents from Taikoo Shing) and D3’s public service records. We are told, among other things, that D3 was dedicated to the promotion of mediation in Hong Kong and was active in his service as a District Councilor. We do not intend to go into all the details. It suffices for us to say that, based on the materials contained in D3’s mitigation bundle, we are satisfied that D3 is of positive good character as evidenced by his long-term public service. For this, we grant him an additional 3 months reduction.
62. Apart from the above, we are unable to see any other factors which may further reduce D3’s sentence. Therefore, D3 is sentenced to 7 years’ (84 months) imprisonment.
D4 Chung Kam-lun
63. D4 is now aged 36. He was a District Councillor and the Chairman of the Sai Kung District Council at the material time. He has a clear criminal record.
64. Ms. Valerie Chan, counsel for D4, submitted that D4’s culpability might fall in the middle of the middle spectrum, i.e. “active participant”. She suggested that a starting point of 4 to 5 years be
