HKSAR v. WU CHI TAI, KENNIS

DCCC1419/2009
DCCC100/2010
DCCC303 & 587/2010 (CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1419 OF 2009, 100 OF 2010 AND

303 & 587 OF 2010 (CONS)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 2nd defendant is aged 32, five previous convictions, one to do with theft, and he is a healthy young man and was born in Hong Kong and was educated up to Form 3. I am told that he is a vehicle technician, according to his counsel, he has also had owned his own car-repairing service but it had closed down, and that is one of the reasons he turned to crime.

2.  The 2nd defendant, although he has not had an offence of burglary in his past, committed this present offence of attempted burglary whilst on police bail for another burglary offence. So I consider therefore that the starting point should be increased to 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 because of his plea.

3.  Now, I will deal with the other cases that the defendant faces. In DCC587 and 303 (consolidated), in the case of the 1st charge which is in relation to DCC303 of 2010, this was committed on 4 October last year, 4 and 5 October, and cash of $3,000 was stolen from a restaurant together with a pair of gold lion statuettes and two gold medals. The total value of the property stolen was $28,000. Now, the property was never recovered. The defendant’s fingerprint was found inside the restaurant on a metal box found on the cashier counter.

4.  In relation to the 2nd charge in the consolidated indictment, which relates to DCCC587 of 2010, on 12 October, in the early hours of the morning, a restaurant in Tsuen Wan was burgled. The rear door of the restaurant had been prised open, and the total value of property taken was about $20,800. Fingerprints were lifted from the scene, and amongst the prints were found the defendant’s fingerprints. Again, the property was never recovered.

5.  Now, in this consolidated case, for the Charge 1, which is DCC303 of 2010, the usual sentence for burglary of a commercial premises, the starting point recommended is 2 and a half years. Because of the defendant’s plea, he is entitled to a discount which is one-third, so therefore that will bring the sentence down to 20 months.

6.  In the case of the 2nd charge, similarly, I consider that a starting point of 30 months is appropriate, reduced to 20 months because of his plea. The sentence in Charge 2, because of the totality principle, 10 months of that sentence will be served consecutive to the sentence in the 1st charge. So the total sentence for this consolidated indictment is 30 months’ imprisonment.

7.  Now, I come to the case DCCC1419 of 2009 in which the defendant, Wu Chi-tai Kennis, committed this with three others. He faced three charges: Charge 2 for conspiracy to burgle, Charge 6 for attempted burglary, and Charge 7 for taking a conveyance without authority.

8.  Now, the facts in relation to this indictment is that on 22 October 2009, at about 2 am, police officers on an anti‑burglary operation saw the four accused in this indictment, including the defendant, Wu Chi-tai Kennis, arrive at the scene in a private car with registration HY 1262. Wu Chi‑tai was the driver of the car. All the defendants alighted from the car and walked to the back of a restaurant, and when the defendant, Wu Chi-tai, and the 1st defendant, Ng Kai-nam in that indictment reached the rear door of that restaurant, the 2nd defendant and his cohort put on caps and gloves. Then they attempted to prise open the rear door with the use of a crowbar. The police officers immediately revealed themselves and arrested the defendants, including Wu Chi-tai.

9.  The car which the 2nd defendant drove to the scene of the crime was registered to a Mr Mao, and Mr Mao says that he had taken the car to the 2nd defendant’s garage, that is, to Wu Chi-tai’s garage, for repair on 11 October and he did not know and did not allow Wu Chi-tai to use his car for any illegal purpose.

10.  Under caution, the 2nd defendant admitted that he had driven his fellow gang members to the scene and he acted as a lookout. He also admitted that he had driven the 1st defendant in this indictment to Tuen Mun and Yuen Long to commit burglary in some shops, and that is why he was charged with the conspiracy charge, Charge 2.

11.  The facts in this indictment show that this was quite a well-planned burglary. The burglars had armed themselves with caps and gloves, a crowbar was taken there, and if not for the efficacy of the police officers involved, they would have got away with yet some more property.

12.  In relation to Charge 7 for taking a conveyance without authority, this, apart from it being a breach of trust and the fact that the owner of the car had entrusted the defendant to repair his car, it is aggravated in that the defendant had borrowed the car to commit a burglary, and this could have very serious consequences for the owner of the car and, to say the least, it may cause him grave inconvenience and it may even cause him to be suspected by the police of involvement in a criminal offence.

13.  In the 2nd charge of conspiracy, admittedly, the defendant admitted it himself.

14.  Now, as far as sentence is concerned, I have decided that in relation to Charge 2, the starting point should be 30 months reduced to 20 months because of his plea. On the 6th charge, it should also be a starting point of 30 months reduced to 20 months because of his plea.

15.  On the 7th charge, which is taking conveyance without authority, the maximum is 7 years. As I have said, this is a very serious taking conveyance without authority on these facts because of the fact that the defendant had taken it to commit burglary. So I consider that a severe starting point should be given to deter others from using innocent people’s cars for committing crime. So I consider a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate, reduced to 2 years because of his plea.

16.  I have to consider the totality principle for this indictment. So on Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months. On Charge 6, the 20 months, 10 months will be served consecutive to the 20 months. And on the 7th charge, 6 months will be served consecutive to the sentences in the above two charges, giving us a total of 36 months.

17.  Now, I have to look at the overall sentence for sentences for Wu Chi-tai Kennis. So in the case of the consolidated indictment, that is, 587 and 303, he has been sentenced to a total of 30 months. In DCCC1419, he was sentenced to 3 years. In DCCC100, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years, thus giving us a total of 7 years 6 months.

18.  Although in principle I could order that the sentences be served as it is because these were all individual offences, nevertheless, I have to look at the overall impact and totality, and so I order that for the consolidated indictment 587 and 303, the defendant will serve a sentence of 30 months. For 1419 of 09, the sentence of 3 years, 2 years will be served consecutive to the previous sentence of 30 months. And then for the indictment 100 of 2010, of the 2-year sentence, 10 months will be consecutive to the previous two sentences, giving us a total of 64 months which should give us 5 years 4 months.

(Discussion re calculation of sentences)

19.  You will go to prison for 5 years 4 months.