HKSAR v. YEUNG CHI WA

DCCC 230/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 230 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to the following charges:

(1) theft of a taxi (1^st Charge);

(2) using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (2^nd Charge);

(3) using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (3^rd Charge);

(4) using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (4^th Charge);

(5) theft of a vehicle licence (5^th Charge);

(6) using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (6^th Charge);

(7) using a vehicle licence on a vehicle with intent to deceive (7^th Charge);

(8) using a restricted zone permit on a vehicle with intent to deceive (8^th Charge);

(9) using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (9^th Charge).

Facts

2.  In the early hours on 11/11/2016, a taxi bearing registration mark PZ 963 with chassis number JT753TR1009030353 parked at the street of Chai Wan was found missing (“the Stolen Taxi”).  The matter was reported to the police (1^st Charge). 

3.  On 24/11/2016, the driver of a rented taxi bearing registration mark HA 9072 parked it near the Hong Kong International Airport and then fell asleep whilst waiting for customers.  When he woke up, he found the vehicle licence missing (5^th Charge).  He informed the taxi rental company.

4.  In the morning on 23/12/2016, the police on patrol in a public car park in Pat Heung intercepted the Defendant for enquiries.  The Defendant was driving a taxi, the Stolen Taxi.   The taxi had on it the registration mark KX 8483, a false number plate (6^th Charge).  Affixed on its windscreen were a vehicle licence with registration mark HA 9072 (7^th Charge) and a restricted zone permit with handwritten registration mark HA 9072 (8^th Charge).  There were 2 number plates of KG 1609 (4th Charge) underneath the carpet of the driver seat.  The original number plates of PZ 963 was in the trunk, together with those of HA 9072 (2^nd Charge) and RM 9641 (3^rd Charge).

5.  After arrest and caution, he admitted stealing the Stolen Taxi to earn money; the number plates and the stolen vehicle licence of another car were used to conceal the identity of the Stolen Taxi. 

6.  The third party insurance policy of the Stolen Taxi did not cover his driving of it (9^th Charge). 

Mitigation

7.  He is 34 years of age, of F. 2 education level.  He has no previous records similar to the present offences.  He committed the present offences as he could not put up the $5,000 deposit to rent a taxi to drive. 

8.  Mr. Wong submits 4 cases for comparison of sentences.  In HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming CACC 356/2000, the defendant dishonestly handled a brandnew stolen car.  The starting point of 3 years was regarded as appropriate by the Court of Appeal. 

9.  In HKSAR v Kan Tak Man (簡德民) CACC 122/2016, the defendant was sentenced for the theft of car (1^st Charge), driving without a valid driving licence (2^nd Charge), using a car without third party insurance (3^rd Charge), and using documents on a car with intent to deceive (4^th Charge).  The overall starting point for sentence was 3 years and 6 months plus 6 months due to his record of persistent offending.  Leave to appeal against sentence was refused by the Court of Appeal. 

10.  In HKSAR v Tsang Kwun Wing (曾冠榮) CACC 89/2004, the defendant stole a taxi (1^st Charge) and purchased 2 sets of number plates and forged vehicle licences (2^nd – 5^th Charges) to conceal its identity when using it to earn a living for one year.  He drove without third party insurance (6^th Charge) and it was an unlicensed vehicle (7^th Charge).  The overall sentence of 2 years and 8 months on a plea of guilty was approved by the Court of Appeal. 

11.  In HKSAR v Lam Yui Yiu （林銳堯）CACC 373/2006, the defendant dishonestly handled a stolen taxi and fitted it with false number plates for a period of less than 3 weeks.  A starting point of 4 years was regarded at the top end of the range but not manifestly excessive by the Court of Appeal. 

Sentencing this Defendant

12.  The starting points for the 1^st Charge are 3 years, for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Charges each 3 months, and for the 5^th and 9^th Charges 6 months each respectively.  The only mitigating factor is the plea of guilty, which attracts a one-third discount.  The sentence for the 1^st Charge becomes 2 years, for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Charges each 2 months, and for the 5^th and 9^th Charges each 4 months respectively. 

13.  I have considered the totality principle, so the sentences are to be partly concurrent as follows:

(1) 2 years for the 1^st Charge;

(2) Sentence for the 5^th Charge to be consecutive to other charges;

(3) Sentence for the 9^th Charge to be consecutive to other charges;

(4) Sentence for each of the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th Charges to be concurrent with one another as well as other charges.

14.  The total sentence is 2 years and 8 months. 

15.  Besides, I order disqualification for 4 years in respect of the 1^st Charge by virtue of section 69(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.   I also order disqualification of 2 years 6 months in respect of the 9^th Charge by virtue of section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272.  The 2 terms of disqualification are to be concurrent.