HKSAR v. YEUNG CHI CHUNG

DCCC160/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.160 OF 2011

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 11 charges of theft, admitted to the summary of facts and was duly convicted.

Facts

2.  The defendant, between 15^th January and 16^th December 2010, stole the 11 vehicles in the 11 charges. The stolen vehicles were all parked either in open space car park or by the road side. The stolen vehicles were all taken from where they were parked.

3.  On 11^th March 2010, based on the global positioning system tracking signal from the stolen vehicle in charge 7, Police officers entered a warehouse at no.39 Pang Loon Tei, Ka Lung Road, Lok Ma Chau, New Territories. The warehouse was rented by the defendant.

4.  Inside the warehouse, Police found the stolen vehicles in charges 1, 2, 3, the engine of the vehicle in charge 5, front portion of vehicle in charge 6 and the vehicle of charge 7.

5.  On 16^th December 2010, Police officers located the stolen vehicle in charge 11 at an open space car park in Yuen Long. The Police officers monitored the vehicle. At about 18:36, the defendant was seen driving the vehicle away. The defendant was intercepted. And the defendant arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted he stole the vehicle.

6.  The defendant’s residence was searched and V4, engine of V8, rear view mirror of V9 and 6 electric drills which were inside V10 when it was stolen were found. Under further caution, the defendant admitted that he stole the vehicles in charge 4 and 8.

7.  In the later video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted he stole the charge 1-11 vehicles, he would either sell the vehicles or dismantle them and sell the parts.

8.  The total value of the stolen vehicles is HK$2,461,780, which included 1,666,780 of r6 recovered vehicles (V1,2,3,4,7,11) and $795,000 for the other unrecovered vehicles.

Previous convictions

9.  The defendant has 17 previous convictions, 5 of which are theft and 10 of which are taking conveyance without authority.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong and is 32 years old. He was educated up to Form 2 level in Hong Kong. After the defendant quit school in 1992, he worked as a garage worker but became unemployed in 1998. The defendant is not a drug addict and his general health condition is good.

11.  He had been an apprentice in a garage, delivery worker. During his employment he earned about 10K per month. 3k to his mother, housewife. His parents are living in public housing unit. His 2 elder sisters are married and moved away.

12.  The defendant cooperated with the Police and admitted to all offences in his interviews. He pleaded guilty and saved court’s time.

13.  The defendant was in debt, he needed quick money and committed the offences for the money. The defendant is sorry for his foolish act and remorseful for his past records.

14.  He has applied to join the Christian fellowship, hoping to start new life.

15.  Of the 11 cars stolen, 6 were recovered; parts of the other 5 were also recovered. The parts recovered were worth about $100-120K. The defendant admitted that he sold the stolen cars for money and had spent all the money. The cars are not luxurious cars, just goods vehicles and one bike. There is no evidence of a crime syndicate in operation here. The defendant has also cooperated with the Police.

16.  The defendant had been in custody since December 2010.  The defendant was sentenced in another case in January 2011, estimated date of discharge is mid-August 2011.

Sentence

17.  I think the relevant factors to take into consideration when sentencing in our present case are as follows.

18.  The defendant had specific targets for his thefts. All the vehicles were parked in open spaces and would therefore be easy targets. This indicate a certain level of planning. The thefts spanned a whole year. There is no direct evidence that the defendant was acting in concert with others in any of the thefts.

19.  The defendant has 17 previous convictions. The nearest conviction involving dishonesty was in 2009 when he was convicted of theft, using a copy of a false instrument and using an identity card relating to another person. His latest conviction was in 2011 when he was sentenced for Driving whilst disqualified, using a motor vehicle on a road against third party risks and failing to provide a blood specimen for analysis. The defendant is clearly a repeated offender.

20.  Bearing in mind the above factors especially the prolonged period of the thefts, I find that a starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for each of the 11 offences. I will reduce this by one third to 28 months’ imprisonment in recognition of the defendant’s guilty pleas.

Totality

21.  Bearing in mind the principle of totality, I will order that 14 months of charge 2 be served consecutively to the 28 months sentence of charge 1. The rest of the sentence of the remaining charges be served concurrently to charges 1 and 2. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 42 months imprisonment.

22.  I will order that this sentence be served wholly consecutively to the present term of sentence that the defendant is serving.