HKSAR v. CHAU CHEUNG LUN

DCCC83/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 83 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to six charges. Three of these charges involve charges of theft, and one of them involves a theft of a taxi. And there are related charges to that charge, namely charges of driving without a valid driving licence, using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and a forgery offence in relation to two forged number plates which were used on the taxi.

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that two taxi drivers rented a taxi, which I will call “the taxi”, from a Mr Tse. At 3.40 am, on 19 November, one of the taxi drivers parked the taxi on the roadside of Shun Ning Road in Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon.  He locked the doors and left it unattended, and at 7 o'clock the next day the other user of the taxi found that it was missing.  Built into the taxi was a GPS system, a global positioning system, and this indicated that the taxi was somewhere in the region of Pak Shek Au in Lok Ma Chau in the small hours of 24 November. 

3.  The drivers of the taxi went to Lok Ma Chau at about 10 past 5 in the morning, and the saw the taxi inside a car park at Lok Ma Chau.  The licence plate had been replaced.  The case was reported to the police, and a team of officers arrived soon afterwards.  They noticed that the vehicle also had a vehicle licence, telecommunications licence and a restricted zone permit which had been stolen from another taxi.

4.  At about 1.30 on 24 November, the officers saw the defendant approaching the taxi.  After he opened the door of the taxi with a key he was intercepted, and four keys were found in his possession.  On a search of his wallet the officers came across a membership card in the name of a Lam Kwun-chung.  Lam Kwun-chung was eventually traced by the police, and he said that that car, together with other items, were stolen from him on 10 September when he was in Repulse Bay.

5.  The defendant was arrested and cautioned, and when he was interviewed he admitted that he had taken a driving test in 2001 in Hong Kong, but he had failed it.  With regard to the membership card found in his wallet, he said that in mid-August, in Repulse Bay Beach, he stole a shoulder bag and its contents from a couple.  The shoulder bag contained two wallets, two mobile phones, a camera, two Hong Kong identity cards, bank cards and the membership card which had been recovered from his wallet, and cash of $500. 

6.  The defendant said he disposed of all the items except the card, which was a discount card, which he used to buy clothing.  He admitted that two of the four keys found in his possession were taxi keys.  He said that at around 3 am on 19 November he brought those keys with him and attempted to open the doors of taxis which were parked in Shun Ning Road.  He said that he managed to open the door of one taxi, but was unable to find the key to start the taxi.  So from that he stole the vehicle licence, telecommunications licence and restricted zone permit the subject of the 3rd charge.  And it was those that were located in the taxi which he eventually stole. 

7.  On the same night, by using these two taxi keys, he managed to open the taxi the subject of the 2nd charge.  He said he drove the taxi away, and the following day he went to a shop and ordered a pair of number plates which he put on the front and rear of the stolen taxi, and threw away the original plates.  He then started to pick up passengers using the stolen taxi.  Obviously in these circumstances he was uninsured to drive the taxi. 

8.  The defendant has an appalling criminal record. Although there are relatively few court appearances, there are only eight court appearances but they encompass some 32 offences, 25 of which were for theft.  I am told that he is now aged 48 and is married but separated from his wife since his incarceration in 2008, and he lived alone in a flat in Shenzhen after that.  By that relationship he has three children aged 17, 15 and 5.  I am told that although he is now separated from his wife, she in fact visited him in the last six weeks, and he is optimistic that they will be able to get back together once he is released from prison.  His wife lives in Hong Kong with the three children in a public housing estate and works as a part-time clerk. 

9.  One significant feature of the defendant’s record is that notwithstanding the number of theft and other convictions recorded, his criminal career did not start until 2001 when he was nearly 40. I am told that when the defendant was 18 his mother sent him to study in the UK, but after one year at university he dropped out and got casual work in restaurants in England.  He needed to drive and obtained a driving licence for that purpose whilst in the United Kingdom. 

10.  In 1990 he came back to Hong Kong and worked in sales and transportation.  I am told that because of the economic downturn that employment came to an end in 2001, and thereafter he found it difficult to get any work.  I am told that it was after that that he then turned to a life of crime.  I am told that since he has been in prison on this occasion on remand, that he has been introduced to the Bible and has been influenced by it and hopes to mend his ways. 

11.  With regard to his record, it was pointed out by the prosecution that the convictions recorded against him in 2008 also relate to the illegal use of a taxi, one which the defendant had rented.  As regards the 1st charge, the theft of the shoulder bag in Repulse Bay, I have considered the circumstances of that case.  For theft of personal property of that kind, even for a person of clear record a starting point of 12 to 15 months would be appropriate.  Clearly the defendant does not fall into the category of a person with a clear record.

12.  I also note that the venue from which the item was stolen, Repulse Bay in August, would no doubt have been very busy.  It’s a sort of area that attracts pickpockets and thieves on the lookout for bags put to one side by their distracted owners.  Given your background, your criminal background and the venue from which the property was stolen, I have decided that the appropriate starting point for that offence is 27 months’ imprisonment, which I reduce to 18 months to reflect your guilty plea. 

13.  As regards the 2nd charge, to which you pleaded guilty, the theft of the taxi, this is a serious offence.  Not only does it involve the theft of an expensive item, namely a taxi, but you used the taxi, which obviously puts at risk the uninsured passengers and causes enormous inconvenience to its owners and users, and the loss of livelihood to them.  Taking into account your criminal record I have decided that the appropriate starting point for that offence is 3 years, which I reduce to 2 years to reflect your guilty plea.

14.  As regards the 3rd charge, the charge of theft from the taxi, I know that that was committed on the same occasion as the 2nd charge, and it was whilst you were out looking for a taxi to steal.  You stole the items from this taxi because you were unable to take it away, but it also enabled you to conceal the identity of the vehicle you subsequently stole.  I take a starting point of 2 years for that offence and reduce it to 16 months to reflect the guilty plea. 

15.  For driving without a driving licence, I impose a sentence of 1 month imprisonment.  For driving without insurance - in this particular case it is serious because it involved the use of the taxi - I take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months to reflect your guilty plea and the fact that you were previously convicted of a similar offence, and I disqualify you from driving for 2 years.  As regards the forgery offences, I note that these were for obtaining forged number plates to use on the stolen taxi.  I take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 8 months to reflect the guilty plea.  

16.  I have considered the question of totality.  I have also taken into account that a number of the offences were connected with the theft of the taxi.  The sentence on Charge 1 is 18 months’ imprisonment and Charge 2 is 24 months’ imprisonment.  I order that 12 months of the sentence on Charge 2 run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 1.  I order that all the other sentences run concurrently. 

17.  The total sentence of imprisonment therefore will be one of 30 months’ imprisonment, and you are disqualified from driving for two years.