HKSAR v. LO KAI SING

DCCC755 & 1208/2009 (CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 755 AND 1208 OF 2009 (CONS)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210.

Facts of the Case

2.  In the afternoon of 7^th March 2009, D2 was asked by D1 to use his identity card to pawn a Rolex watch for $4000.

3.  D1 gave him $200 as a reward.

4.  At all material time, D2 knew that the Rolex watch was a stolen property.

Criminal Record

5.  He had 2 previous convictions: -

2006	Theft	4 months suspended for 2 years
18/11/2009	Conspiracy to rob.	24 months	DCCC 57/2009

Mitigation:-

6.  D2 is 21 of age; he comes from a broken family. His mother is in Court to support him.

7.  The Defendant in his own letter said that he regretted very much for turning a deaf ear to his mother’s advice .He knows that his mother still stands by him, she travels a long way to see him in prison and she is the only person he can rely upon. He undertakes that he will be a good son after his release from prison.

8.  He is currently serving a 24 months imprisonment.

9.  The Defence also urged upon me to take into account of the facts that the Rolex watch was pawned for $4000 and the Defendant was rewarded for $200.

Sentence

11.  I was referred to the case of HKSAR v Xiao Wei (2004) 1 HKC 520, which was also a case of handling stolen goods. The Appellant’s sentence of a charge of handling stolen goods was reduced from 3 years to 18 months.

12.  The Appellant was in fact a persistent offender and therefore the court took a higher starting point.

13.  In the present case, there was no evidence to show that D2 was aware of the Rolex case came from a domestic burglary case. Although the prosecution case showed that the watch was pawned by D2 within a few hours after D1 had burgled into the victim’s premises, when the victim was out for her own business.

14.  The estimate value of the Rolex watch was about $3000 while D2 received $4000 from the pawn shop.

15.  D2’s reward was only $200. D1 pocket the $3,800.

16.  D2, when he pawned the Rolex watch, he had to show his identity card to the pawnshop. As the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Xiao Wei said, “ it revealed a considerable lack of sophistication in his method of converting the stolen watch into cash thereby exposing himself.”

17.  When I passed the sentence on the Defendant, I bear in mind of all the mitigating factors before me, including the fact that the Defendant has pleaded guilty before me, the nature of the case and the special circumstances, I , therefore, take a starting point of 12 months and reduce the sentence to 7 months. I also order the 3 months to be run concurrently with DCCC 570/2009.