HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI CHIU

DCCC 399/2025

[2025] HKDC 2167

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 399 OF 2025

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The Defendant pleaded guilty to all 3 charges and was convicted accordingly.

Brief Facts

2.   PW1 Lin was the owner of a Yamaha motorcycle with the registration mark SX5110.  

3.   At about 8:30 pm on 23 October 2024, PW1 parked the motorcycle at the rear lane at Yu Chau Street.  He left the motorcycle with its key still in the ignition switch.  PW1 found the motorcycle missing on the next day.  

4.   The CCTV footage in the vicinity of the street captured the Defendant, who was wearing a short-sleeved blue T-shirt and blue jeans and carrying a brown crossbody bag, drove the motorcycle away at about 4 am on 24 October 2024. 

5.   At about 3:30 pm on 24 October 2024, PC 22049 (PW2) intercepted the Defendant at Pek Ho Street.  The Defendant allowed PW2 to inspect his phone, and photos of the stolen motorcycle were found.  The Defendant told PW2 that he found a key at the rear lane of Yu Chau Street and eventually drove the stolen motorcycle away. 

6.   Upon arrest and caution, the Defendant said it was Ah Hung who found the motorcycle key.  The Defendant drove away the motorcycle and parked it at Tong Yam Street.  However, the Defendant found the motorcycle missing when he returned to Tong Yam Street. 

7.   In the video-recorded interview, the Defendant, stated, inter alia, that:- 

(i) At about 3 pm on 24 October 2024, the Defendant met Ah Hung who told him that he found a car key somewhere. Ah Hung gave the key to the Defendant.

(ii) They went to Yu Chau Street and found the motorcycle parked at the rear lane.

(iii) The Defendant tried one motorcycle and managed to ignite it.

(iv) The Defendant drove the motorcycle away and parked at Tong Yam Street.

(v) The Defendant left the key in the ignition switch and left the scene.

(vi) When he returned to the scene, the motorcycle went missing.

(vii) The Defendant does not have a valid driving licence, and did not take out any third-party insurance.

8.   It is confirmed that the Defendant does not have any valid motorcycle driving licence.  

Mitigation

9.   The Defendant is aged 63.  The Defendant had been working as a security guard, and as a part-time food delivery worker and cleaner.  The Defendant had sustained injury during work.  

10.   It is submitted that PW1 said the value of the stolen motorcycle is about $5,000. Defence counsel revealed that the Defendant had provided information to the police in 7 criminal cases and the Defendants in those cases were convicted.  When asked, the Prosecution confirmed the Defendant’s status but could not verify the details.  

11.   The Defendant is remorseful and is willing to compensate PW1.  Defence counsel referred to a number of District Court cases relating to the sentence of the theft of motorcycle offences.  It was also suggested that the appropriate sentence for Charges 2 and 3 could be in the region of 6 weeks.  

12.   The Defendant’s mitigation letter is tendered.  Today, the Defendant’s sister appeared in court to support him.  She tendered $5,000 cash to compensate the loss of PW1. 

Sentence

13.   The Defendant was born in China and is a Hong Kong resident.  He is aged 63 and educated up to Form 3.  He claimed to be single in the antecedent statement but is now separated from his wife.  Starting from June 1982, the Defendant had a total of 59 convictions.  He had a number of convictions relating to driving while disqualified and using a motor vehicle without third-party insurance.  

14.   In his mitigation letter, the Defendant said he felt remorseful and was sorry that it brought inconvenience to the motorcycle owner.  He committed the present crime out of fun.  The Defendant mentioned that since 2022, he had given information to the police and from January to August in 2024, he had given assistance to the police in 3 cases.  

15.   I would not accept that it is a mitigating factor for a Defendant who could provide assistance to the police in any form and could be regarded as a good citizen, can take this kind of assistance as a kind of shield and/or a ground for a discount for his criminal wrongdoings in any sense.  Given the Defendant’s long conviction records, in particular those with similar convictions, it is obvious that the Defendant does not learn any lessons at all.  He had convictions relating to drugs trafficking.  I do not accept that the Defendant committed the present offence just out of fun.  If that is the case, why didn’t the Defendant park the motorcycle back to Yu Chau Street?  Instead, he parked at Tong Yam Street and even left the key in the switch.  The motorcycle went missing again when the Defendant returned to Tong Yam Street.  The same motorcycle was literally stolen twice within 2 days.  

16.   PW1 said the value of the motorcycle is $5,000.  

17.   Considering all factors, I would sentence the Defendant as follows:- 

Charge 1

18.   I would adopt a starting point of 2½ years (30 months) and with his plea, the sentence is reduced to 20 months.  The Defendant managed to persuade his sister to compensate PW1 with $5,000.  In this regard, I would make a compensation order of $5,000. And I would reduce the sentence by 1 month.  Hence, the sentence for Charge 1 is 19 months’ imprisonment.

Charges 2 and 3

19.   Without a driving licence and without any third-party insurance, the Defendant’s act can be taken as a menace to other road users.  The Defendant is a repeated offender and a deterrent sentence is called for.  I would adopt a starting point of 3 months, and with his plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 months for both charges, to be served concurrently. 

20.   I have considered the totality principle and take the view that the nature of offence under Charge 1 is totally different from the remaining charges.  I order that the sentences be served consecutively.  That is, I sentence the Defendant to a total of 21 months (19 months + 2 months).  

21.   On the other hand, as the Defendant does not have any valid driving licence of any form, there is no point to make any order relating to attending a driving improvement course.  

22.   This is not the first conviction of the Defendant relating to driving without a licence.  I would impose an order of disqualification for 5 years, which includes obtaining a driving licence. The disqualification period is to start to run only until the Defendant finishes serving his prison term (section 69A of Cap 374).