HKSAR v. CHU LOK HIN

DCCC 1163/2021

[2022] HKDC 1032

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1163 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant (D)  pleaded guilty before me to 2 Charges of Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Both offences occurred on 27 August 2021 in the cargo loading areas of 2 industrial buildings in Kwun Tong area, Charge 1 involved 2 boxes of electronic products valued at HK$13,000 while Charge 2 involved 3 boxes of electronic products valued at US$310,000, which is equivalent to about HK$2.4 million.

Facts of case

2.  According to the Summary of Facts admitted by D, the modus operandi in both Charges were similar. 

Charge 1

3.  At around 9:30 am on 27 August 2021, Mr LI was driving his goods vehicle to deliver 4 boxes of electronic products to Westley Square Car Park at No.48 Hoi Yuen Road.  Having arrived at the Car Park, he unloaded the goods onto a trolley at the rear of his vehicle and went to the nearside to lock his vehicle.  When he returned to the trolley, he saw D holding 2 boxes of his goods, worth about HK$13,000, and walked towards the exit.  Mr LI immediately gave chase.  D then discarded the 2 boxes onto the ground and fled.  In the course of doing so, D left his wallet containing his HKID Card, bank cards and Home Visa on the ground.

Charge 2

4.  At around 11 am on the same day, Mr YAU, with 78 boxes of electronic products in his goods vehicle, arrived at Kwong Sang Hong Centre at No.151-153 Hoi Bun Road.  He lowered the tailboard of his vehicle and left to make a delivery to a client.  His vehicle was left unlocked with the goods unattended.  He returned 15 minutes later and continued to go to a warehouse in San Tin to deliver the remainder of the goods.  Upon arrival at the San Tin warehouse he discovered that 3 boxes of his goods, worth about US$310,000, had gone missing. 

5.  The CCTV footages at Kwong Sang Hong Centre showed that at the material times D and 2 other persons boarded the vehicle of Mr YAU, took away the 3 boxes of goods concerned, boarded another goods vehicle and left together.

Arrest

6.  D was arrested by the police on 5 September 2021.  He now admits to have committed the above offences.

Background of D

7.  D is now 24 years old, born in Hong Kong on 19 December 1997.  His parents divorced when he was still a child.  He was brought up by his fraternal grandparents and had never met his mother.  According to Mr WONG, who represented D in this case, after finishing Form 3 education D started his working life in various fields, including electrician trainee, construction worker, salesman and transportation worker.  He suffered from an industrial accident resulting in some degree of permanent disability so that he could not carry out heavy manual work.  His grandmother is suffering from terminal stage of stomach cancer.  He has a clear criminal record prior to the present offences.

Mitigation

8.  In mitigation, Mr WONG submitted that D committed the present offences under bad peer influence. He did not realize the serious consequence of his criminal conducts.  He is now deeply remorseful and promised not to re-offend.  Mitigation letters written by D, his father and grandfather, and Rev LI Kin Ming of Well Charity Foundation Limited were submitted in support.

9.  Mr WONG submitted the main mitigating factor in the present case is D’s early guilty plea which warrants a full 1/3 discount.  He also asked the Court to consider giving further discount in view of D’s clear record, young age, family support and determination to turn a new leaf.  Citing a number of District Court cases of similar nature, Mr WONG urged the Court to be as lenient as possible to D.

Sentence

10.  There is no tariff for the offence under consideration.  For offences of Theft involving “breach of trust”, the value of the stolen property involved in this case, viz., about HK$2.4 million, would attract a sentence between 3 to 5 years imprisonment[1]. As submitted by Mr WONG, a strict mathematical calculation would produce a sentence of 53 months.  There is no such aggravating factor involved in this case.

11.  The offences in the present case are more like opportunistic stealing, no sophisticated planning was involved.  However, it seems valuable goods were targeted by D and his associates.  The property involved in Charge 1 was recovered.  Charge 2 is much more serious as it involved at least 3 culprits, the value of the property was much higher and was not recovered.

12.  Having taken all relevant factors into consideration, for Charge 1, I adopt 18 months as the starting point, reduce it by 1/3 for the timely guilty plea to 12 months’ imprisonment.  For Charge 2, I adopt 42 months as the starting point, reduce it by 1/3 for the guilty plea to 28 months.

13.  The 2 offences were committed at different locations at different times against different victims.  The sentences should in principle be run consecutively.  Taking the totality principle into account, I order 2 months in Charge 1 to run consecutively to Charge 2.  The total sentence for the 2 Charges would be 30 months.

14.  D is only 23 years old at the time of the offences.  This is his first criminal conviction.  I accept that he is genuinely remorseful.  He has full support from his family to rehabilitate.  I also take into account his family background in general and the health condition of his grandmother in particular.  For these factors I am prepared to be as lenient as possible to D and reduce the sentence by a further 3 months.  This is achieved by reducing the sentence of Charge 2 from 28 months to 25 months.

15.  For the 2 Charges D is facing, he is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 : 12 months, 2 months to run consecutively to Charge 2

Charge 2 : 25 months

Total sentence: 27 months