HKSAR v. LEUNG KA YI

DCCC278/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 278 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 2nd defendant has been convicted after trial of Charge 3, handling stolen goods. I will not repeat the facts of the case or my reasons for verdict, as I have given a full account this morning in my verdict.

2.  In short, the 1st defendant had stolen a wallet as well as robbed a woman of her handbag.  Certain documents, including identity cards, travel documents and bank books of either one or the other victim were found in the 2nd defendant’s home, in a bag under her pillow.

3.  The police, acting on information, obtained a search warrant and arrested the 2nd defendant at home with the 1st defendant present.  She told the police that she had got these items from the 1st defendant who asked her to sell them on.

4.  Handling stolen goods is a serious offence but sentencing will be decided on the facts of each individual case.  Defence counsel has helpfully given me an authority.  HKSAR v Xiao Wei, [2004] 1HKC 520 at page 524, lists out what can be described as factors relevant to sentencing, mainly what can be described as aggravating factors. Defence counsel submits none apply here.

5.  I do not agree entirely.  The primary offence of robbery is a particularly serious offence.  How goods are obtained and the value of the goods is also very relevant.  In this case, the defendant has told the police that the plan was to try and sell the documents on.  One can only foresee a person buying identity documents or travel documents belonging to others to use for illegal purposes, very possibly in furtherance of crime.  That is a serious scenario.  However, I will take into account that there is no evidence that there had yet been attempts to sell the documents by the second defendant.

6.  A term of imprisonment is inevitable to reflect the seriousness of this charge, the facts of the case, the primary offence and the plan to sell on identity documents and travel documents.  There are no other aggravating factors I see relevant.  A community service order or a suspended sentence would not be appropriate under these circumstances.

7.  I have heard mitigation.  Although the defendant has one previous conviction, it was 14 years ago when the defendant was only 15 years old.  She is now 29 and unemployed.  The defendant has supportive parents who were divorced when the defendant was young.  Both have written letters to the court.  Both feel guilt and express their disappointment in themselves for letting the defendant down.  However, the defendant is 29 years old.  She is mature enough to decide what is right and what is wrong; who is a good peer or a bad peer.  The parents should be supportive but also should not bear the blame.

8.  There is a third letter from the father of a good friend of the defendant, who has known her for a very long time and in short says this is out of character and possibly because she is easily led astray.  All mitigation letters ask for leniency.  I will take all of these into account.

9.  After having considered all those matters I have referred to, for this charge, I will take a starting point of 18 months. I see no reason to reduce it any further.  This is a conviction after trial. For Charge 3, I impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.