THE QUEEN v. CHIU KO WAI

1991 No. 498

__________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Sears J.

1. This is the judgment of the court.

2. This applicant pleaded guilty at the District Court before Judge Tung to a charge of handling stolen goods and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

3. The brief facts were that on March 15th 1991 at about 9.25 p.m. a police launch intercepted a wooden motorised sampan in Deep Bay. It had a car on board and was travelling towards Shenzhen Bay. Upon interception, the defendant jumped into the sea and was later arrested. He admitted under caution that he had been employed in smuggling television sets and had been offered $10,000.00 to smuggle a car into China.

4. Subsequent enquiries revealed that the car, a Mercedes Benz, valued at $350,000.00, had been stolen earlier that day from a car park in Causeway Bay.

5. The judge when sentencing the defendant said that a deterrent sentence was called for.

6. At the outset it must be made clear that those who participate in the theft of, or the handling of cars ought to receive deterrent sentences. It is becoming very prevalent in Hong Kong for cars to be stolen and smuggled into China. It is right, therefore, that, in order to protect the public, substantial prison sentences should be passed on those who steal or assist in the disposal of cars, the majority of which are in the luxury class.

7. The defendant pleaded guilty and had no previous convictions. There was no evidence that he was in any way involved in the theft of the car, although he was handling it a short time after it was stolen.

8. It would appear that a sentence of three years on these facts and on the current level of sentencing is on the high side. The judge did not indicate what starting point he had in mind, nor the discount given for the mitigation.

9. In those circumstances, it seems right that as the sentence may well be considered to be presently on the high side, the court would be justified in reducing it by 6 months. However, for the future, courts would be entitled to consider passing substantial prison sentences to deter those who engage in the stealing and disposal of cars. If there are aggravating circumstances, such as organised criminal syndicates, these would justify increasing the sentence still further.

10. The object of such future higher sentences is to protect the public from having their cars stolen. They are valuable assets and their loss causes both economic and social deprivation.

11. As far as this particular case is concerned, we give leave to appeal and reduce the sentence to 21/2 years.