HKSAR v. Mao Chun Wai

DCCC 774/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 774 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges in total, two of theft and one of using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive, and they all relate to the theft of a Honda Jazz motor vehicle on 8 April 2015.

2.The victim had parked that vehicle on a parking meter in Tuen Mun on the evening of 8 April 2015, and it was found to be missing the next day.  Police conducted investigations, and on 10 April the stolen vehicle was in fact recovered from a garage in Pat Heung in the New Territories.

3.The defendant had been seen driving to that location.  The stolen vehicle had false number plates attached to it.  The defendant was intercepted going away from the garage where the stolen vehicle was found, and he threw away a bag, and when that was searched, the false number plates were found, together with some other items which could be used in the theft of vehicles.

4.The defendant was arrested, and he immediately admitted under caution that he had stolen the vehicle two days ago.  He had used a computerised ignition key and done it by himself.  He had taken it to Ma On Kong, parked it there for two days, and then after that had driven it to the garage.

5.The defendant made further admissions in video‑recorded interviews.  He also admitted that he had changed the number plates and thrown the original ones away.  The admissions in the video‑recorded interviews provide further details of the admissions he had already made to police.

6.The 2nd charge relates to items that had been taken from the vehicle, and we can see those relate to items such as compact discs, dashboard cameras and the like.  There was also damage to the vehicle as a result of its theft, and putting the vehicle back into its original condition has cost the victim $51,500.

7.The defendant has made a full admission of the facts and has admitted them, in fact, from the time of his arrest and caution.

8.As far as his antecedents are concerned, he is aged 40.  He has a criminal record, which I will deal with in a moment.  He was unemployed at the time of his arrest.  The defendant, although recorded as being single, has two sons and a fiancée.

9.As far as the defendant’s criminal record is concerned, there are four recorded previous appearances in court, with a total of 15 convictions.  The convictions largely relate to the use of vehicles, convictions such as dangerous driving and using a motor vehicle without third party risk being covered, and driving while disqualified, for which the defendant has been sentenced to prison on previous occasions.

10.There are convictions of dishonesty in 2007, going equipped for stealing, and most recently, in the year 2011, convictions for handling stolen goods with sentences of, in total, it appears to be 24 months’ imprisonment, and I am informed that those relate to motor vehicles.  So it would appear that the sentences imposed in 2011 were insufficient to deter the defendant from again being involved in the theft and disposal of motor vehicles.

11.The defendant’s mitigation is as follows.  Firstly, he has admitted from the outset his involvement in this matter, and pleaded guilty today.  He has strong support from his fiancée, and also he offers a small amount of compensation, which is an acknowledgement of his remorse in this matter.  Also, in respect of the offence itself, the defendant acknowledges that the theft of vehicles is a serious matter, but points out that some of the aggravating factors that may be present are not here.  This is not what one would describe as a luxury vehicle, and the vehicle has not been stolen, as far as one can see, for use outside of Hong Kong.

12.It is, however, a crime committed with a degree of professionalism and inside knowledge of how to steal motor vehicles.  It is persistent in that the defendant has been involved in this kind of offending before.

13.The most serious offence is clearly the first offence.  The 2nd charge of theft relates to matters taken out of the vehicle, and the 5th charge of using the vehicle with intent to deceive involves the use of the false registration mark.  It is fair to say that the offences are part and parcel of the same offending, and because of that I consider that it is appropriate that any sentences I impose will be served concurrently.

14.I will deal now with the starting point for sentence on the 1st charge.  This involves the theft of the vehicle.  Sentences for thefts of vehicles can range, and have ranged in previous cases, between 30 months and 48 months’ imprisonment.  This involves the single theft of a vehicle.  It is a Honda Jazz, not a luxury car.  In the course of the theft a great deal of damage which cannot be compensated has occurred on the vehicle. 

15.For this single offence of theft, I will take a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant, as I said, is a persistent offender in this area, and that is an aggravating factor in sentence.  For that factor, I will add a further 6 months’ imprisonment, taking the starting point of sentence on the 1st charge to 39 months’ imprisonment.

16.After a deduction of one-third, that leads to a sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment.

17.On the 2nd charge, I will take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 12 months’ imprisonment for the plea of guilty; and on the 5th charge, I will take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months’ imprisonment for the plea of guilty; all sentences to be served concurrently.

18.That is a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.

19.There will also be an order of $1,500 compensation to the victim that has been offered and is capable of being paid forthwith.