HKSAR v. NG KA SING, MICK

DCCC 323/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 323 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy to commit criminal damage and failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause.

2.  The facts were that in the afternoon on 9 October 2010, the front door of Des Voeux Chambers at 38th Floor, Gloucester Tower, Central was damaged by splashed red paint. Police then came to the scene and seized a white plastic bag containing red paint left at the floor next to the door.

3.  Defendant was later arrested and on video recorded interview, he admitted having been hired by Mr Yip Sing-yeung to splash red paint outside the chambers for a remuneration of 15,000, but defendant actually received 9,000. Yip then provided him the address and a bottle of 1.25 litres of red paint.  There was another person holding lift for the defendant when he splashed the red paint at the front door and defendant had been using SIM card mobile phone to contact Mr Yip. 

4.  The CCTV system had captured the defendant’s action and defendant could also positively identify himself.

5.  Defendant subsequently attended court and was required to surrender on 26 August 2011 for trial but he then failed to turn up.  It was not until 18 May 2015 that defendant was intercepted by a police officer in an amusement games centre in Mong Kok and was found a subject of an arrest warrant.  Defendant had without any reasonable cause failing to surrender to custody as appointed by the court.

6.  Defendant aged 37 and had 7 previous criminal records.  Most related to possession of dangerous drugs and the last one was in 2007, where defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for committing a fraud.

7.  Mr Ng for the defendant submits that the defendant had pleaded guilty and saving court’s costs and time.  Mr Ng further says the defendant was employed by Yip to commit the offence and he was not the mastermind, and shall therefore receive a lesser sentence, where Yip had been sentenced by me to 10 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea.

8.  As to failing to surrender, Mr Ng says defendant had to accompany his wife to a medical clinic on that day, but of course, that was not a reasonable excuse for his absence till 2015.

9.  Conspiracy to commit criminal damage is a serious offence, particularly the subject premises was a counsel chambers.  No doubt barristers had the duty to defend their case fearlessly and it is paramount in the administration of justice.  The criminal damage could directly or indirectly affect their professional operation and could result in profound adverse effect in the administration of justice.  The facts were serious.

10.  Mr Yip was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea by me.  I see not much difference whether the person was a middleman or the perpetrator.  Clearly, they were also parties in the same plot.

11.  Therefore, the starting point in this case shall be the same of 15 months’ imprisonment, and be reduced to 10 months upon guilty plea.

12.  As to failing to surrender, defendant had been absent for quite a lengthy period.  From his past records and court experience, defendant must have known the seriousness of attending court.

13.  I shall adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and that be reduced to 2 months upon guilty plea and that shall be imposed consecutively to the first charge.

14.  Therefore, the sentence is as follows:

1^st Charge: 10 months’ imprisonment;

2^nd Charge: 2 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the 1^st Charge.

15.  Therefore, the total sentence is 12 months’ imprisonment.