HKSAR v. SINGH AKBAL

DCCC 511/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 511 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1. The Defendant has been convicted after trial of one count of handling stolen goods, contrary to Section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The stolen goods in question are 4 tires, valued at $8,000. I am told by Counsel for the Prosecution that these are used tires, and likely from the same vehicle.

2.  The Defendant was seen by patrolling police officers standing outside a house at No.2 Lee Uk Village. Upon seeing the officers, he turned and walked hurriedly into the house, arousing their suspicions. The officers followed him in, and he was inside a small room near the entrance, where the 4 tires were kept. When questioned if the tires belonged to him, the Defendant said the 4 tires were not stolen by him, it had nothing to do with him. The tires had been stolen by his friends and brought there, and he had been asked to watch them.

3.  The Defendant is aged 38 years.  He had studied up to Form 4.  He was unemployed at the time of the offence, relying on CSSA of about $1,600, although he did do some casual transportation work.  He is separated from his wife, and lived alone at the time of the offence.  He has 3 children, aged between 8 and 18 years, all students.

4.  He has 3 previous convictions, the last in 2003 for fighting in a public place when he was fined $500.  He has no similar previous convictions, and his only other conviction involving dishonesty was in 1986.  For the purpose of sentencing, I disregarded his previous convictions.

Sentencing authorities

5.  While not setting down any guideline sentences, the case of R v. Bernard Webbe & Ors (unreported), referred to by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v. Xiao Wei, CACC 225/2003, provide some assistance as to certain aggravating factors which may affect sentencing in handling cases.  These were set out in R v. Bernard Webbe & Ors (at paragraph 20) as follows:

“1. The closeness of the handler to the primary offence. (We add that closeness may be geographical, arising from presence at or near the primary offence when it was committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated or encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or, soon after, provided a safe haven or route for disposal).

2. Particular seriousness in the primary offence.

3. High value of the goods to the loser, including sentimental value.

4. The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a domestic burglary.

5. Sophistication in relation to the handling.

6. A high level of profit made or expected by the handler.

7. The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for stolen goods.

8. Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler over others, for example, an adult commissioning criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer pressurizing addicts to steal in order to pay for their habit.

9. As is statutorily provided by section 151(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the commission of an offence while on bail.”

6.  Here, the only aggravating factor is that the place where the tires were stolen from was very near No. 2, Lee Uk Village.  The value of the goods was $8,000, which is not particularly high.  The stolen property has now been recovered, and there has been no loss.  The Defendant’s role was to watch the goods – there was no sophistication in the role he played in respect of the goods.  I note also that he did co-operate with the police, and led them to find the other 4 tires that had been stolen, and it was he who disclosed to the police where the tires had been stolen from.

7.  The Defendant has been convicted after trial, and he has shown no remorse.  There is very little in mitigation before me.

8.  Bearing in mind these considerations, I find that the appropriate sentence is one of 15 months’ imprisonment.