HKSAR v. The Cheung-fung

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 628/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 14 February 2018.

1. The defendant has been convicted of three offences on his own plea of guilty. They are offences that exist out of what I would call the aftermath of this relationship he had with PW1 and how it ended. I have set out the circumstances under which the defendant stole the cheques, damaged the property, and then was arrested. He has agreed the facts of that.

Cites 1 case

Case No.DCCC 628/2017[2018] HKDC 330
Court
District Court
Date14 Feb 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 628/2017

[2018] HKDC 330

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 628 OF 2017

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  The Cheung-fung  

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

Before: HH Judge Casewell
Date: 14 February 2018 at 10.51 am
Present: Ms Patricia E Alva, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Ms Monica Chow, instructed by T C Lau & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
Offences: (1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
  (2) Theft (盜竊罪)
  (3) Making false instruments (製造虛假文書)
  (4) Criminal damage (刑事損壞)
  (5) Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (抗拒執行職責的警務人員)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted of three offences on his own plea of guilty. They are offences that exist out of what I would call the aftermath of this relationship he had with PW1 and how it ended. I have set out the circumstances under which the defendant stole the cheques, damaged the property, and then was arrested. He has agreed the facts of that.

2.As far as the defendant himself is concerned, he has an extensive criminal record, mainly for drugs and burglary, with substantial periods of imprisonment.

3.Of course, the burglary allegation fell away at an early stage in this case, but the fact that the defendant has ended up again facing criminal charges as a result of his behaviour is, I think, illustrative of his lack of regard for legality.  In fact, his most recent conviction on 17 July 2017 was in relation to assaulting someone and wounding someone, but that largely came out of his relationship with PW1 as well.

4.The offences which I am left to sentence the defendant on are relatively minor, the most serious of those being the 2nd charge.  However, I do have to sentence the defendant on the basis on which I convicted him factually and not make any other assumptions as to what use those cheques might have been made use of.

5.So what I shall do is impose the following sentences of imprisonment.  I am also going to order the defendant pay $3,000 worth of compensation to PW2 for the damage to Room 2.

6.On the 2nd charge I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for his plea of guilty.  On the remaining two charges, 4 and 5, I will take a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment and reduce that to 4 weeks’, or 1 month’s, imprisonment on both of those charges.

7.I will order the sentences to be run concurrently, so a total of 2 months’ imprisonment, together with a compensation order of $3,000 to PW2; one month to pay.

  (T Casewell)
  District Judge

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 628/2017