HKSAR v. MAN GOT WANG AND ANOTHER

DCCC827/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 827 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 1st defendant has now been convicted after trial of Charge 1, stealing a medium goods vehicle worth approximately HK$350,000.

2.  The 2nd defendant, who was jointly charged with the 1st defendant in Charge 1, pleaded guilty before trial and gave evidence as a prosecution witness against the 1st defendant.  The 2nd defendant also pleaded guilty to Charge 2 (driving without a valid driving licence) and Charge 3 (using a motor vehicle without third-party insurance).

3.  After the evidence of the 2nd defendant, I believed his evidence was credible and also rejected the 1st defendant’s evidence, leading to the 1st defendant being convicted after trial.

4.  I do not intend to repeat the facts or my findings, as I gave full reasons in my verdict against the 1st defendant.

5.  I found that the 1st defendant did invite the 2nd defendant to come back to Hong Kong to steal a vehicle in return for a reward of $5,000.

6.  On the material night, the 1st defendant took the 2nd defendant to the vehicle and successfully taught him how to break in and start that vehicle. The 1st defendant then led the 2nd defendant by vehicle to his yard in Lau Fau Shan from Sheung Shui. That stolen vehicle was driven into the yard to conceal it.

7.  When the police discovered the 1st defendant in his own vehicle outside his yard after 3 am that night, they quickly recovered the vehicle inside the yard, some 100 metres away. At that time a man was already removing the stolen vehicle’s licence plates.

8.  I said in my verdict against the 1st defendant that I found he was the mastermind and the 2nd defendant acting upon his instructions.  I differentiated their roles.

9.  The 2nd defendant gave evidence that led to the 1st defendant’s conviction. He will be entitled to more than the usual one-third discount for his plea.

10.  Counsel for the 2nd defendant referred me to the Court of Final Appeal case, Z v HKSAR [2007] 10 HKCFAR 183.  Defence counsel suggests he is entitled to 50 per cent off the starting point I find appropriate.  The prosecution’s stance is to agree with that submission.

11.  The 2nd defendant’s background is as follows.  He is a citizen of the PRC, the Mainland, and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He is 39 years old, with a family at home.  Clearly, he came here to earn some money and agreed to commit this crime for $5,000, a sum he obviously did not receive.

12.  The 1st defendant’s background is different.  He is a Hong Kong citizen some years older, 52.  He has one previous conviction in 1999, a District Court case where he was convicted of handling stolen goods and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.  I have been told that the goods involved in that conviction are vehicles.  He is a divorced man and a father of three. 

13.  I have a letter from his eldest daughter and ex-wife, who ask the court for leniency and refer to the 1st defendant as a responsible father.

14.  I also have a letter from the defendant’s employer, also asking the court for leniency.

15.  The 1st defendant’s counsel refer me to two District Court cases, where the sentences relate to thefts of vehicles. 

16.  I have referred myself to those cases.  In fact, there are no tariffs for this type of theft.  What will be relevant is the facts of the case, the number of vehicles involved, their values and mitigation, and such.

17.  In this case, the owner of the vehicle has not suffered a loss.  There is some damage to the vehicle, which the 1st defendant agrees to repay. 

18.  I will take that into account in mitigation.

19.  Defendants, please stand up.

20.  I will, after considering all the above factors, find a starting point for Charge 1, where the 1st defendant is involved, a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.

21.  I see no reason for any further discount, as the 1st defendant is convicted after trial.

22.  The 2nd defendant, I find his role less serious than the 1st defendant:  I take a starting point of 2 years and 2 months.

23.  As I have said, the 2nd defendant is entitled to a discount of 50 per cent for his role and assistance in this trial.  This includes, obviously, his discount for his plea of guilty.

24.  For Charge 1, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 1 month imprisonment.

25.  For Charge 2, I take a starting point of 2 months. 

26.  After a discount of 50 per cent, the 2nd defendant is sentenced to 1 month imprisonment for Charge 2.

27.  Charge 3, similarly, I take a starting point of 2 months.

28.  The 2nd defendant is entitled to a 50 discount and for Charge 3 will be sentenced to 1 month imprisonment.

29.  For Charge 3, the 2nd defendant is also disqualified from driving any class of vehicle in Hong Kong for 18 months, including taking any driving test.  That disqualification is with effect from today.

30.  I make a record that there is no licence from the 2nd defendant to be handed in today; he has no licence.

31.  Charges 2 and 3 were committed in the course of committing Charge 1.  All three charges will be served concurrently.

32.  I repeat:

(1) the 1st defendant for Charge 1 is sentenced to
2 years and 6 months;

(2) the 2nd defendant, Charges 1, 2 and 3, a total of
1 year and 1 month sentence.