HKSAR v. CHOY WAI SHING

DCCC 53/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 53 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to six offences in total. Two of them relate to the theft of motor vehicles, and the other four accompanying charges are charges relating to driving without a driving licence and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance; offences committed consequent upon the original theft offences.

2.  The vehicles in question were motorcycles and were stolen between 10 October and 12 October in one case, and 2 November last year in the second case.  In each case the vehicles had been parked by their owners, and on returning, the owners found the vehicles to be missing.

3.  The defendant’s involvement surfaced as a result of police perusal of CCTV cameras which had shown the defendant, together with another male, taking away the vehicle on 2 November 2013.

4.  The defendant was arrested by the police, and he subsequently admitted taking the vehicle on 2 November 2013.  He said he did it for fun, and he admitted at that time that he had stolen another vehicle as well.  He was able to give further details of when and where that vehicle had been stolen from.

5.  In a video-recorded interview the defendant gave further admissions as to the stealing of both the vehicles in question.  In respect of one vehicle - that was the vehicle stolen on 2 November - he had done that in concert with another man, and for the vehicle stolen earlier, in October, he had stolen that by using a cable connected to the ignition keyhole to start the engine.

6.  The defendant has no valid driving licence, so naturally, when the defendant drove away these vehicles in question after stealing them, he was driving them on a road without a valid driving licence, and also there would have been no third party risk insurance.

7.  The defendant was accordingly convicted of all six offences by me.

8.  The defendant’s criminal antecedents show that he has a large number of previous convictions, 39 appearances in court, 16 offences in respect of theft or attempted theft, and four offences of taking a conveyance without authority.  The defendant also has a number of convictions for possession of dangerous drugs.  It is clear that the defendant has committed theft and also theft involving vehicles on a substantial number of previous occasions.

9.  There is a background report on the defendant. He is aged 45 years.  The conclusion of the report is that the defendant is a single person, a middle-aged man who has been a chronic drug abuser and repeated offender since 1986.  It says he has mostly committed drug-related and theft-related offences and spent much time behind bars serving his sentences. The repeated imprisonments appear not to have had much deterrent effect on him.

10.  The report does mention that during the present remand of the defendant, his brother had committed suicide.  This has had an influence on the defendant, and he told the officer he dared not commit any further offences again.  He felt regretful for his misdeeds and he is worried about his aging mother.  It is his intention to get rid of his drug habit and sever his links with undesirable peers, and find a proper job to engage in.  It is to be hoped that that will be the case for the defendant.

11.  In considering the appropriate starting point for sentence for the defendant, the defendant has committed offences of theft in respect of Charges 1 and 4.  These are the more serious of the defendant’s offences and the more persistent.  The 1st and 4th charges both involve the theft of a motor vehicle.  There is no tariff or recommended sentence for these particular kinds of offences, but the repetition of such offences is serious in the defendant’s case.

12.  I consider that on all the offences the defendant faces, a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.  I shall deal at this stage with the theft offences 1 and 4.  I would normally adopt in these offences a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  The aggravation in this case is the defendant’s repeated committing of this form of offence.  I consider the appropriate starting point in respect of the 1st and 4th offences is in fact one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount, so on Charges 1 and 4 there will be a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.

13.  In respect of the 2nd and 5th charge, they are the driving without a driving licence, again a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate.  I take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and impose a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment after the deduction for the plea of guilty on Charges 2 and 4.

14.  On Charges 3 and 6, both involve using a motor vehicle without third party insurance.  I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 4 months’ imprisonment, and also order the mandatory 12‑month disqualification from driving on each of those.

15.  Having regard to the fact that these offences fall into two distinct sets of offences committed at the same time, or the offences were committed at the same time, I am going to order that Charges 1, 2 and 3, the sentences run concurrently to each other, and that 4, 5 and 6 run concurrently to each other.  However, these groups of offences - that is, the 1st to 3rd and 4th to 6th - were committed on separate occasions, and so some element of them I consider must be served consecutively notwithstanding that one must consider the overall totality of sentence.

16.  Having regard to that overall totality, what I am going to order is that 7 months of the 4th, 5th and 6th group of sentences be served consecutively to that of the first group - that is, Charges 1, 2 and 3 - and the balance concurrently, which is a total overall sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.