HKSAR v. CHENG PAK YIN

DCCC 441/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 441 OF 2009

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

 

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to two charges of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 (charges 1 & 3) and two charges of using a false instrument, contrary to section 73 of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200 (charges 2 & 4). 

2.  In summary on the 4th and 13th February this year the defendant pawned at two different pawnshops, two watches, a Cartier and a Rolex, which had been stolen in two burglaries of domestic premises on the   25th January and the 12th February respectively (charges 1 & 3).  The watches valued at $26,000 and $25,000 respectively have fortunately both been recovered.

3.  When pawning the watches the defendant on each occasion used a forged “Acknowledgement of Application for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card” in the name of KWOK Shuk-tak and which bore the defendant’s photograph (charges 2 & 4).  The defendant also gave a false address to the pawnshop brokers.

4.  I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Wong together with the letters written by the defendant and his family.  I take into account the defendant committed the offences to relieve the financial burden of his mother, who I am told is suffering from psychiatric illness. 

5.  There are no guidelines for sentence in cases of handling stolen goods.  Assistance can however be obtained as to the factors to take into account from the case of R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 82 as applied in HKSAR v XIAO Wei [2004] 1 HKC 520 and HKSAR v YAU Pak-chun CACC 211/2006 (English digest in the Criminal Appeals Bulletin, January 2006).

6.  In HKSAR v XIAO Wei the Court of Appeal held that the proper starting point after trial for handling a stolen watch, valued at about $11,200, which had been obtained in a domestic burglary was 18 months imprisonment.  In that case however no false instrument was used when pawning the watch so as to cover up the identity of the handler as in the present case.  The use of such a forged document bearing the defendant’s photograph shows a degree of planning and connection with a wider organisation, which has caused the forgery to be printed specifically for use by the defendant.

7.  In HKSAR v TAN Luping HCMA 70/2008 the court upheld a sentence of 12 months imprisonment on a plea of guilty where a forged Acknowledgement of Application for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card was used to obtain employment.

8.  I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial on each of the handling charges is 2 years and 3 months imprisonment and on the charges of using a false instrument 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.  These offences were committed whilst the defendant was on court bail for an offence of going equipped for stealing for which he is now serving  6 months imprisonment.  Commission of offences on bail is an aggravating feature justifying an increase in the starting points.  Accordingly I increase the starting points on the two handling charges to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

9.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty he is sentenced as follows:

  Charge 1 – 1 year and 8 months imprisonment;

  Charge 2 – 12 months imprisonment;

  Charge 3 – 1 year and 8 months imprisonment;

  Charge 4 – 12 months imprisonment;

Charges 1 & 2 arising out of the same facts I order the sentences to be served concurrently.  Similarly for charges 3 & 4 I order the sentences to be served concurrently.  The two sets of offences are however separate and distinct and therefore consecutive sentences are appropriate.  Taking into account totality of sentence I order 1 year and 4 months consecutive and 4 months concurrent.  This makes a total sentence of 3 years imprisonment, which I am satisfied properly reflects the defendant’s criminality on the four charges.  I further order that the sentence be served consecutively to the sentence the defendant is now serving (due to be discharged on the 14th of this month) for going equipped for stealing, which offence is entirely separate and distinct from the present offences.