HKSAR v. OR HUNG MAN

DCCC 684/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 684 OF 2009

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210. 

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the admitted facts.  In summary Jumbo Logistics (China) Company Limited had a warehouse situated at the Hope Sea Industrial Centre in Kowloon.  Since 2007 Jumbo Logistics employed the defendant, whose duty was to stay overnight at the warehouse for which he was given a key to the warehouse.  On the 13th February this year 328 printers valued at HK$282,400 were delivered to the warehouse.  The following day staff of Jumbo Logistics parked goods vehicle NF 1462 at the warehouse.  Inside the goods vehicle was a game machine, loudspeakers and a music player valued at HK$3,900.  On the 16th February the printers together with the goods vehicle and the items left inside were found missing. 

3.  Three months later staff of Jumbo Logistics whilst having a meal saw the defendant.  The defendant ran away during the course of which he dropped the keys to the goods vehicle.  The defendant was subdued and a report was made to the police.  Under caution the defendant admitted arranging for someone to drive away the goods vehicle inside which he had loaded the printers.  The defendant sold the printers for $50,000 because he owed a gambling debt.   The defendant has told the court today he committed the offence because of greed arising from being addicted to gambling.

4.  The defendant in stealing the goods vehicle and the printers delivered to his employer was acting in breach of the trust placed in him by his employer giving him the key to the warehouse.  In passing sentence I have considered the principles laid down in R v Clark (1998)   2 Cr App R 137 as applied in HKSAR v CHEUNG Mee-kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 as revised in HKSAR v NG Kwok-wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017.  In CHEUNG Mee-kiu the Court of Appeal said the proper starting point after trial where the amount stolen was between HK$250,000 and  $1 million is 2-3 years imprisonment.

5.  In passing sentence I take into account that the goods vehicle has been recovered.  The loss to the owner of the printers is HK$282,400 and to the owner of the music equipment HK$3,900.  I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is one of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to    1 year and 6 months imprisonment.