HKSAR v. SINGH GURSEWAK

DCCC 441/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 441 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft and one offence of fraud.

2. The case concerns the theft and subsequent fraudulent sale of a light goods vehicle, the theft occurring from a recycled goods yard in Tin Shui Wai, where the vehicle was stored.  The vehicle had been purchased by the owner in 2008.  At some point, ownership had been transferred to his sister and the vehicle registration document was left in the vehicle.

3. On 22 March 2012, the person in charge of the vehicle, who is PW1, was duped to going to a police station in Yau Ma Tei and it would appear while he was away the vehicle was stolen with the vehicle registration document in it.

4. On the previous day, 21 March, some preliminary negotiations about sale had been done with a vehicle sales agent by a man who spoke Punti, and the result of this was that an inspection of a goods vehicle had been arranged on 22 March.  This must have been shortly after the vehicle was stolen from the goods yard.

5. At the inspection, a man called Chan drove the vehicle and the defendant was on board, and when the vehicle was sold, the defendant had made representations that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and presented the vehicle registration documents.

6. The vehicle was sold for 125,000 by way of a cheque, which was made to the defendant, and that cheque was cashed by the defendant on 22 March 2012.

7. Defendant was subsequently arrested for this matter and denied the offence under caution.

8. Together with the vehicle, there are also some miscellaneous items in it - camera, video recorder, electronic scale - and they are charged in the theft offence.

9. Defendant has pleaded guilty to both offences. He has some previous criminal record - an offence of theft and also possession of dangerous drugs - and I believe the defendant received an 8-month sentence of imprisonment for his offence of theft, so he has a record of dishonesty.

10. He is now aged 31 years old.  He is a married man with two children and he is illiterate and came from India in 1996. Clearly, he is only able to obtain jobs such a labouring and has worked on construction sites and earned up to $10,000 per month.

11. As I said, he has family.  He is a permanent resident of Hong Kong.  He has two children:  a 6-year-old and a 5-month old, and his wife and the children are totally dependent on him, but they live with a relative in Tuen Mun.

12. As far as sentence is concerned, the defendant has been frank about his involvement in this case.  The sentences for cases such as this, involving the theft of a vehicle, depend very much on the individual factors to each offence, but sentences could range between 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment.

13. The vehicle cannot be described as a luxury vehicle. It is a light goods vehicle, 4 years old at the time it was stolen. There does not appear to be any what is called cross-border involvement.  The vehicle was sold very shortly after it was taken. 

14. The defendant himself appears to have had the role of an assistant in the theft.  His identity card was used.  He is not a dealer in vehicles and on his mitigation he received a sum of $5,000, but his bank account appears to have been used for the cashing of the cheque.

15. In mitigation, it is said that the offences, as far as this defendant is concerned, form part and parcel of one incident and, although the sentences may be applied consecutively, it is put in mitigation that they can in this case quite properly be served concurrently.

16. My approach to sentencing is as follows.

17. Clearly, the theft of a vehicle is a serious matter, especially when it is sold on.  There is an element of sophistication in the crime, in that a deception was used to take the person who had charge of the vehicle away from its location, and clearly the theft of the vehicle was envisaged the day before, because the start of negotiations about its sale occurred on the 21st. 

18. The defendant has pleaded guilty on the basis he was involved in what clearly was a joint enterprise with another person, and it may well be that person was the person involved in the negotiation.

19. The defendant appears from his mitigation to be an unsophisticated person - as I say, illiterate - allowing himself to be used for this offence.

20. Given the amount of money received by the defendant and his involvement, and the nature of the offence, I consider that a starting point for sentence in respect of each of the offences - that is Charges 1 and 2 - should be one of 33 months’ imprisonment.

21. Having regard to the overall totality of sentence, and the fact that the offences form, as far as I could see, one incident as far as this defendant is concerned, I consider that any sentences served can be served concurrently.

22. From that sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount, so that means on each charge there will be a sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.

23. As I have indicated, they will be served concurrently, so the total sentence of imprisonment the defendant will face is one of 22 months’ imprisonment.