HKSAR v. LEUNG PUI

DCCC1073/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1073 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

2.  The prosecution case is embodied in the opening and is as follows: PW1 and PW2 were security guards at Nelson Court, 45 Waterloo Road, Mong Kok.  The car park there provided hourly spaces on the ground floor and monthly or privately owned spaces on floors 1 to 3.  On 24 July last at about 5.55 am, PW1 found a car being driven by a male, who is the wanted person, with yourself on board going to the 3rd floor.  That vehicle was not one registered to a monthly space.  You alighted leaving the wanted person inside.  PW1 approached you and told you you could not park there.  PW1 then returned to the management office.

3.  At that time, PW2 noticed on the CCTV that the car was driven to the 2nd floor but then went off-screen.  You and the wanted person appeared shortly thereafter in the spaces 18 to 19.  PW2 informed PW1 to intervene.  Upon reaching there, PW1 saw that you and the wanted person moved a safe from the car and placed it on the ground.  PW1 asked you what you were doing but you did not reply and drove off leaving the safe behind.  The wanted person then drove the car to the entrance at speed and slightly crashed into the drop-bar.  PW2 went to the 2nd floor to find the safe which had been dumped there by you and the wanted person.  The police were called.

4.  About 9.30 am that morning, PW3 returned to Wilson Art Glass Company Limited, Ground Floor, 74 Shanghai Street, Mong Kok, where he find the front roller prised and lifted up.  He found the safe containing $11,760, Renminbi 1,350, two seals and documents to be missing.  He therefore informed his boss who was PW4.  PW4 found a further $480 to be missing.

5.  At 7.30 pm the night before, PW4 and another member of staff had left the premises secure.  PW4 identified the abandoned safe as the safe from the company.  The contents were intact. 

6.  On 7 August last, you were arrested at your residence.  Interviewed under caution, you admitted to having gone to the car park with the wanted person at the material time and seeing a safe on the 2nd floor.  On 15 August last, an identification parade was held at the police station and PW1 identified you.

7.  You admitted to seven previous convictions, three of which involved dishonesty.  On your behalf, Mr Chung entered mitigation.  I was told about your personal and domestic circumstances.  You are a single man residing with your family and providing about $3,000 from your earnings as a casual transportation worker. 

8.  In respect of the offence itself, Mr Chung rightly pointed out that there was no tariff in this type of case.  It must be decided according to its particular circumstances.  The authority provided was one that was decided on its particular facts.  I accept, as per the amended charge, that you played no part in the original burglary.  I accept your part was to merely assist the wanted person in abandoning the goods. 

9.  I also accept that the goods stolen were largely recovered apart from a small amount of cash and there was no damage done.  However, I do note this is entirely fortuitous, the safe having been abandoned in a public car park.  It goes without saying that you could not and did not know what was inside that safe, therefore the goods that you were dealing with were a mystery to you. 

10.  There is no evidence that you received any benefit from your part in this handling offence and on that point I give you the benefit of the doubt.  However, you were an essential cog in the aftermath of that burglary.  You are a man with a substantial criminal record.

11.  Please stand, please.  In all the circumstances, I do take as a starting point 21 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 14.  You will go to prison for 14 months.