|
DCCC31/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 31 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chow Hon-wing |
(D1) |
| |
Chow Hon-leung |
(D2) |
| |
Cheung Wing-kwong |
(D3) |
| ---------------------- |
Before: Deputy District Judge Woodcock
Date: 10 June 2010 at 12.19 pm
|
Present:
|
Miss Hermina Ng, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
|
| |
Mr Lo Chi-lam, Caesar, instructed by Herman H M Hui & Co.,assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,for the 1st Defendant
|
| |
Mr Ma Ming-tak, Stephen, instructed by Lau Pau & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant
|
| |
Mr Ho Chun-lui, Jeff, instructed by Henry Lam & Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
(1)–(4) Theft (盜竊罪)
(5) Handling stolen goods (處理賊贓物罪)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. For the 1st defendant, he has pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of theft handling stolen goods, Charge 5, and after trial, the 2nd defendant has been convicted of Charge 4, and the 3rd defendant convicted of Charges 1, 2 and 4.
2. Let me deal first with Charge 4 and 5. They are the same facts. I will not repeat all the details. I gave full details in my verdict.
3. Clearly Charge 4 is an opportunistic theft of valuable goods left unattended. I am sure that the three men went to Kowloon Bay Industrial Area for a specific purpose. In this area, goods - often valuable goods - are delivered, unloaded, collected and therefore on occasions likely to be left unattended. There was, as in this case, an opportunity to steal valuable goods left unattended.
4. The same would apply to Charges 1 and 2. In San Po Kong area there is similar industrial activity going on where goods will flow in and out.
5. This Kowloon Bay and San Po Kong area provides rich pickings, especially if boxes are examined first to make sure the contents within are valuable. This would not be hard to ascertain as the contents of the goods are often obvious from the packing.
6. In Charge 4, I am sure that the 2nd and 3rd defendant got out of the 1st defendant’s vehicle to walk around and scout the area for valuable goods. Once the goods in the back of PW2’s vehicle was ascertained to be worth stealing, I am sure the 2nd and 3rd defendant waited for an opportune moment.
7. I am sure the 2nd defendant acted as a lookout and the 3rd defendant did the snatching. The 1st defendant’s role was that of a getaway driver. I am sure he was sat waiting in the vehicle for the 2nd and 3rd defendant to come back or for goods to be loaded into his vehicle.
8. Once the two boxes stolen from PW2’s vehicle were loaded into his vehicle, they immediately drove to a logistics company nearby to dispose of these boxes as soon as possible. The 2nd defendant followed on almost immediately in a taxi. These goods were arranged to be sent to China.
9. This group knew how to dispose of goods very quickly. The 1st defendant’s role as a getaway driver is an important role.
10. The facts of this case that I have just summarised show that there had to have been some planning to this theft. Charge 4 was not a spur-of-the-moment theft. These three defendants did work as a team. As a team, there would have been more chance of success and less risk of apprehension. This is a relevant factor where sentence is concerned.
11. Another significant factor is the value of the goods stolen. Charge 1, the box was worth $12,090. Charge 2, the two boxes were worth together $153,900. I have been informed that the boxes were insured. What that does mean is that the insurance company suffered the loss ultimately. Charge 4, the two boxes were worth $185,869.
12. I have also considered the mitigation put forward on behalf of each defendant and taken them into account.
13. The 1st and 2nd defendant are men with previous clear records. The 3rd defendant has previous convictions, four in total, the last conviction being in the year 2006. None of his previous convictions are similar to the offences here.
14. Despite the 1st defendant pleading guilty to handling stolen goods and the others being convicted of Charge 4, theft, I do not differentiate between their roles. All play important roles. Each defendant’s role is important. The theft would not be successful without one or the other.
15. These are all the relevant factors I have considered in approaching sentence.
16. Please stand up, defendants.
17. For Charge 1, the 3rd defendant, I will take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
18. For Charge 2, the 3rd defendant, I take a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.
19. For Charge 4, the 2nd and 3rd defendant, I take a 24 months’ starting point.
20. Charge 5, the 1st defendant, I also take a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.
21. For the 1st defendant, Charge 5, the defendant has pleaded guilty. He will be entitled to a discount of one-third for that plea. After deduction, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, that is 1 year and 4 months.
22. For the 2nd defendant, Charge 4, I have taken a starting point of 24 months. The defendant is convicted after trial. There is no further mitigating factor that would attract any discount. Charge 4, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
23. The 3rd defendant, Charges 1, 2 and 4, the defendant is convicted of Charges 1, 2 and 4 after trial. Again I see no reason, any mitigating factor for any discount.
24. Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
25. Charge 2, the 3rd defendant is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, of which 6 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.
26. Charge 4, the 3rd defendant is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, of which 8 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges 1 and 2 and the balance to be served concurrently.
27. That would make a total of 32 months’ imprisonment, a 2 year and 8 month sentence.
| |
A. J. Woodcock |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|