HKSAR v. LEUNG KING LAM AND ANOTHER

DCCC 885/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 885 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to one joint charge of theft.

2.  At the relevant time D1, D2 and one Allan Vega were ground services staff of SATS HK Limited in the Hong Kong International Airport, and their duty was to safeguard left or unclaimed luggage which were found within the restricted area of the arrival hall.  They were authorised to deliver these luggage from the arrival hall to storage rooms.  They worked as a team. Allan Vega was the supervisor of the team.

3.  On 10 April 2013 at 1225 hours, a passenger, PW1, arrived at Hong Kong International Airport.  He inadvertently left his hand luggage in the luggage reclaimed area.  The luggage contained cash of US$85,000.  After he had left the airport, he realised that he left his hand luggage inside the restricted area.  He reported the matter to the police.  The luggage was however unrecovered.

4.  The CCTV installed at the restricted area of the arrival hall captured the movement of the trio.

5.  D1 was arrested.  Under caution, he admitted he took the luggage of PW1 and placed it near the baggage enquiry desk.  He informed Allan Vega and D2 about it.  Allan Vega opened the luggage and found money in it.  They took the luggage to a storage room to share the money.

6.  D1 was given altogether US$13,400.  A sum of US$8,400 was later recovered from the residence of D1.

7.  Under caution, D2 said Allan Vega opened the luggage and distributed the money to D1 and D2.  D2 was given altogether US$8,300.  D2 disposed of the luggage in the rubbish room. 

8.  Later, a sum of US$8,300 was recovered from D2’s residence.

9.  Allan Vega made no confession. 

10.  D1 has a clear record.  He is aged 23.  D2 is aged 57 with a record for theft in 1982.  I will treat him as if he is a person of previous good character.

11.  After both defendants pleaded guilty, they indicated they wanted to give assistance to the prosecution by giving evidence as a prosecution witness against Allan Vega.  The case was therefore adjourned for this purpose.

12.  Last week I was told that the trial of Allan Vega had been concluded.  Both defendants did give evidence against Allan Vega who was however acquitted after trial.  I was given the reasons for verdict of the trial judge.

13.  In mitigation, Mr Boyton told the court that D1 is now living with his parents.  His mother suffers from depression because of the arrest of D1.  D1 last worked as a driver in a charitable organisation.

14.  Mr Boyton asked me to take into account the defendant’s guilty plea, his previous good character and assistance to the authority and a slight delay in the prosecution although through no fault of the prosecution.

15.  My attention is drawn to the case of Cheung Mee Kiu¹ and also the mitigation letters from people including D1’s family members and previous employers.  The passenger services manager of SATS HK Limited, Mr Ronald Ma, and D1’s last employer gave good reference describing D1 as a helpful and hardworking employee. 

16.  Miss Lai, counsel for D2, in her written submission in mitigation informed the court that D2 is married with a 5-year-old son.  D2 only received education up to Form 3.  He worked in SATS HK Limited for 7 years.  D2 is now very remorseful, I was told, for what he had done in this case.

17.  Miss Lai relying on HKSAR v Z² asked the court to give an overall discount of 50 per cent for the assistance rendered by D2.  Defence counsel submitted mitigation letters including one from Mr Ronald Ma.

18.  This is a breach of trust case.  I am guided by the case of Cheung Mee Kiu¹ in sentencing the defendants. For theft involving $250,000 to $1 million, the sentencing guideline is imprisonment for 2 to 3 years.  The money stolen in this case was US$85,000 which is approximately equivalent to HK658,000.

19.  For the purpose of sentencing the defendants, I accepted that the crime was initiated by Allan Vega and the defendants only took a lesser share from the spoil.  I accept that this was not a premeditated or organised crime.  I accept that it was committed out of momentary greed of the defendants.  I accept that both defendants are now remorseful.  I take 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of the defendants.

20.  Although the trial judge in the trial of Allan Vega commented the accounts of both defendants as dubious, Mr Tso for the prosecution accepted that both defendants rendered useful assistance to the police.  They testified according to their cautioned statements and witness statements.  The evidence of both defendants was apparently relied upon by the prosecution as a truthful account of the case.

21.  In this connection, the defendants have done their best to assist the authorities.  I will give each of them an overall discount of 50 per cent including the usual discount for their plea of guilty.

22.  Both defendants were arrested in April 2013. They immediately made full admissions upon arrest.  It appears to me that there was a slight delay in the prosecution process, though no blame is put on the prosecution.  The defendants suffered unnecessary anxiety as a result anyway. In this regard, I allow 1 month’s reduction for that.  D1 and D2 are therefore each sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. 

1. HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 476

2. HKSAR v Z [2007] 2 HKC 265