HKSAR v. FAN CHI WAI

DCCC 207/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 207 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has been convicted after trial of one count of handling stolen goods.  The stolen goods, a motorcycle, was worth approximately HK$40,000.

2.   I will not repeat the facts or my findings.  I have given full details and reasons in my verdict.

3.   The victim worked for Kone Elevators Company and drove a bike provided by his company.  On it there was a big rear tailgate box with “Kone” written across it.  Obviously that had to be removed if the bike was stolen as it was very incriminating.

4.   The bike was found two days after it was stolen in a nearby housing estate parked next to other motorcycles, with its rear box removed.  It was discovered when an officer saw the defendant walk up to it and touch the front of it.

5.   At the front of this bike was a newly installed “on/off” switch which meant a key was no longer required to start the engine.  It had been modified since it was stolen.

6.   When stopped, I am sure the defendant tried to convince the police that the bike belonged to him and that he had even earlier discarded the tail box.  He may have thought this fact would add legitimacy to his explanation, but in fact it had the opposite effect. 

7.   The police found the box within an hour and had the victim identify it.  I am sure it was only located because of information given to them by the defendant.  I am sure the prosecution witnesses did not fabricate their evidence.

8.   I rejected the defendant’s explanation and evidence, and inferred from that, as well as recent possession, that he had knowledge the bike was stolen.

9.   I see from the antecedents statement the defendant is 42 years old, locally born; has two children, and lives with his girlfriend.  The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has six previous convictions not similar to handling stolen goods.  His convictions include theft, robbery, trafficking in dangerous drugs, blackmail, and claiming to be a member of a triad society.  He is in fact in breach of a 2-month suspended sentence for claiming to be a member of a triad society imposed on 12 December 2013 in KC 2620/2013.

10.   There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence except that it will attract a custodial sentence.  Each sentence will depend on the facts of each case.  Relevant factors would include the value of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, and sophistication in relation to the handling of the stolen goods.

11.   Here, this motorcycle was worth about HK$40,000; not a significant amount. 

12.   This motorcycle was moved, after it was modified and stolen, to a neighbouring estate, and parked with other motorcycles, perhaps to conceal it.  As I have said, I found that the defendant did approach it and deal with it.

13.   Nothing much was said in mitigation.  The defendant maintains his innocence.  He did add that he was injured at the time, but that is not what came out during the course of the trial, but he did explain during the course of the trial that he had injured his leg, and as far as I recall, the cast had been removed some two months prior to his arrest.  The defendant did go to the hospital after his arrest, but there is no evidence he could not walk or had difficulty walking.

14.   I take into account the facts of this case and the value of the motorbike.

15.   I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  I see no reason to give any discount; the defendant has been convicted after trial.

16.   For this offence, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

17.   I activate the 2-month sentence imposed in KC 2620/2013 for breach of suspended sentence, and order it to be served consecutively to today’s sentence.

18.   Therefore, the total sentence is 2 years and 8 months.