HKSAR v. DJIE CHIN-FIE

DCCC1026/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1026 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft and one charge of failing to surrender to custody - he breached his bail conditions.

2.  The items stolen in the Particulars of Charge 1 are 102,000 pieces of mobile phone chip sets.

3.  The facts of this case are very straightforward.

4.  The defendant is a driver employed by Hap Lik Transportation Services Limited. The owner of these goods, Uppertech Hong Kong Limited, instructed and employed Hap Lik to transport and deliver many boxes of mobile phone chips.

5.  On 6 March 2008 that was the defendant’s job for that day; to collect goods from Uppertech and deliver them around Hong Kong. In a scheme between himself, Mr Ho Wai-fai and Mr Fong Chi-ping, they planned to steal a portion of these items. This plan had been discussed prior to this date.

6.  Fong was also an employee of Hap Lik, whereas Mr Ho was a former employee.

7.  The defendant, as the driver, was to inform Mr Ho if he had an order to deliver electronic components. Electronic components I am sure were the targets because of their high value and are easy to resell.

8.  Once the defendant informed Ho, Ho would locate the defendant’s vehicle and steal the items from within and Mr Fong would arrange a potential buyer. The defendant was to inform Ho where and when would be an appropriate time to steal from the unattended and unsecured vehicle.

9.  On this date, whilst in Fanling, he deliberately left the vehicle unlocked. Mr Ho is seen on CCTV approaching the vehicle, unloading boxes onto a trolley and leaving.

10.  Clearly once the police watched this CCTV they felt suspicious, and their instincts proved correct. It was an inside job and the defendant was arrested. He confessed to his involvement in this theft. He made a record of interview with full admissions and co-operated with the police.

11.  Subsequently he absconded and breached his bail conditions but was relocated earlier this year.

12.  Mr Ho has already been dealt with in DCCC389/2008 and sentenced on 27 May last year. For the same charge of theft he was sentenced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment. That sentencing judge took a starting point of 3 years and 2 months, obviously having taken into account the value of the goods and the authority of Cheung Mee Kiu, CACC99/2006.

13.  Mr Ho benefited from a discount of one-third for his plea plus a further discount of 3 months for ensuring the goods were recovered from a warehouse in a village. No loss was ultimately suffered by the owner of the goods.

14.  I have heard mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf and have details of his background. He has family members here to support him today, and I have a letter of mitigation from his mother.

15.  I have looked at the facts of this case and I do not find the defendant’s role more important or less vital than his co-conspirator, Mr Ho. I do not distinguish between their roles. Neither could have stolen the goods without each other. If the defendant had not called Mr Ho, no theft would have taken place. If Ho did not physically take the goods from the unsecured vehicle after receiving this phone call, no theft would have taken place.

16.  Having considered the defendant’s role and all the factors of mitigation put forward today, I will take the same starting point as the learned Judge in DCCC389/2008.

17.  I will also give the defendant a further discount for his full co-operation. Defence counsel have said he would have told the police the exact address of the warehouse where the good were stored if he had known it. I have no reason to disbelieve that.

18.  Accordingly, for Charge 1, I take the same starting point of 3 years and 2 months, and give the defendant a discount of one-third for his plea.

19.  I will also give this defendant the same discount Mr Ho was given and ultimately sentence this defendant on the 1st charge to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment.

20.  The 2nd charge, the defendant breached his bail conditions and failed to surrender to custody without reasonable cause. I take a starting point of 3 months. The defendant has pleaded guilty, he will earn a discount of 1 month. For the 2nd charge, the defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. These 2 months will run consecutively to Charge 1.

21.  The defendant is in total sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.