HKSAR v. TSE KOON KIT

DCCC953 & 1056/2008 (CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 953 & 1056 OF 2008 (CONS)

 ----------------------

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant have pleaded guilty to six charges.  There are two sets of offences, the first two charges being committed on 21 August and the other four offences being committed on 10 September.  Both sets of offences relate to his taking of motorcycles and being found, in possession of equipment for which he was obviously going to steal.  On 10 September, in respect of those offences, when he was stopped and chased by the police, he assaulted two police officers. 

2.  The circumstances of the first two charges are that on 10 August, at about 9.30, the owner of the motorcycle parked his vehicle outside Serenity Park in Tai Po on 10 August, and on 16 August he discovered that the motorcycle was missing.  At 0447 hours on 21 August, officers were on patrol and spotted the motorcycle jumping traffic lights in Cheung Sha Wan and Butterfly Valley Road junction in Cheung Sha Wan.  The bike was being ridden by the defendant who was told to stop.  He took no notice of the police but accelerated away.  The defendant abandoned the motorcycle in Yau Ma Tei and was pursued by the officers on foot.  He was seen to go into a building in Shanghai Street.  The police officers called for reinforcements, and after a struggle, the defendant was detained.

3.  The officers discovered that ignition system of the motorbike had been prised.  Left-side mirror was broken as was the foot rest and it is going to cost $1,000 to put the damage right. 

4.  On the stolen motorcycle, the police officers recovered a hammer, three pairs of pliers, four screwdrivers, an electric screwdriver, a spanner, a set of Allen keys, a pair of plastic gloves, six pairs of white gloves, a pack of masks, a cap and a torch.

5.  Notwithstanding his record, the police released him on bail, and having been released on bail, he did it again.  At 0609 hours on the morning on 10 September, uniformed police officers were called to intercept an escaping robber who was escaping on a motorcycle on Kimberley Street.  The police saw the defendant on a stationary motorcycle outside No. 26 Kimberley Street and clothing and helmet similar to the robber.  The officers approached the defendant.  He drove off on the motorcycle and subsequently clashed into a roadblock.  The motorcycle fell over.  The defendant got up and ran away.  He was chased by the officers.  He threw his helmet at one of the officers who was hit on his left foot.  The defendant struggled vigorously with another officer, hitting the officer’s right hand and head, and eventually the defendant was subdued and arrested.

6.  Inside the bag being carried by the defendant was a hold and lock rifle and a skeleton key.  I am told that this hold and lock rifle is designed specifically for disabling the ignitions of motorcycles.  It was later discovered that the motorcycle which the defendant had ridden was bearing false registration plate.  The bike had been stolen as had the bike to which the false registration plate related.

7.  Medical examination revealed that one of the officers sustained tenderness on his right knee and the other tenderness on his head and right ring finger, bruising on his right ring finger and abrasion on his right hand.  The defendant sustained tenderness, bruising and swelling on his right knee, left elbow and a fracture on his right patella.

8.  The defendant has an appalling record.  He has been before the court on 15 previous occasions for a variety of offences involving theft, assault, offensive weapons and drugs.  In December 2006, he was sent to prison for 2 and a half years, and I understand he was released from that sentence on 10 April 2008, which is four months before the first motorcycle was stolen.

9.  I am told the defendant is 33; he is married to a British national who lives in the UK.  He lives with his mother and father who are aged 70 and 60 respectively.  His father is a taxi driver; his mother is a housewife.  He has an elder brother who is 40, a security guard, and an elder sister who is 35, works as a clerk.  All five live in a public housing estate in Tai Po.

10.  I am told that the defendant was in employment as a transportation worker earning $7,000 per month, out of which he contributed $3,000 to his family.  I am told that the defendant is now very remorseful for his involvement in these offences and wrote a letter to the court saying that in his four months’ detention at Lai Chi Kok, he has had time to think about his situation and he feels regret and sorrow for what he has done, and he asks for another chance. 

11.  In my view, the defendant was extremely fortunate to be charged merely with taking these motor vehicles without consent because, quite clearly, the appropriate charges should have been theft.  There should also have been a charge of dangerous driving in connection with his driving of the motor vehicle and crashing into a roadblock, creating an obvious and serious risk of damage to property and risk of injury to the police officers.  The defendant is a violent and dishonest person and his behaviour was completely out of control.

12.  I have considered the question of totality.  In my view, he should never have been released on bail in the first place, but having been released on bail, he went on to commit further and more serious offences whilst on bail.  He is a risk to the community and a risk to police officers who have the misfortune to try and control people like him.

13.  In respect of Charge 1, I took a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 8 to reflect his guilty plea.  Charge 2, I took a starting point of 9 months and reduced that to 6 to reflect his guilty plea, and 4 months of that to run consecutive to the 1st charge.  That is a total of 12 months.

14.  The two charges in relation to the assault on the police officers, I took a starting point of 9 months on each of those offences, 4 and 5, and reduce them to 6 months to reflect his guilty plea; 3 months on Charge 5 to run consecutive to Charge 4. 

15.  In respect of Charge 7, that is the taking of the second motor vehicle without consent, I took a starting point of 12 months, reduced it to 8 to reflect his guilty plea, and ordered 4 months of that to run consecutive to Charges 4 and 5.

16.  Charge 8, I took a starting point of 9 months, reduce that to 6 months to reflect his guilty plea and order that 3 months of that run consecutive to Charges 4, 5 and 7.

17.  Charges 4, 5, 7 and 8 were committed whilst he was on bail for Charges 1 and 2.  So I order that the sentence of 16 months in respect of those offences run consecutive to the 12 months on Charges 1 and 2.

18.  In arriving at those sentences, I took into account the question of totality.  The total period of imprisonment will be one of 28 months.