HKSAR v. Yip Shing Tin

DCCC 550/2019

[2020] HKDC 468

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 550 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.This case concerns theft of two private cars parked outside two separate garages on two separate occasions. There are consequent licensing and insurance offences and also on one of the occasions a forged number plate was used. That is charged as well.

2.The first case occurred on the evening of 18 January and the morning of the next day.  A car was driven into a garage in Tai Kok Tsui for repairs.  It was parked outside the garage with the car keys left in the vehicle, an easy target for theft.  The car is valued, according to the Admitted Facts, at around $80,000.  It is an EV registration.  It was stolen the next morning by the defendant.  As I said, the car key was left in the vehicle.

3.The second case occurred on 27 January 2019 at around garage.  Again, a car was parked.  This is an SP vehicle registration. There is no value given.  A car was parked with the key inside, went missing the same day.  The defendant admits he stole it.

4.The defendant, for some reason, drove this car to the location of the first theft; the same garage.  By that time the car was furnished with forged licence plates.  Eventually, the police arrested and the defendant was arrested.

5.We know the defendant has no driving licence and would have consequently had no insurance for driving the vehicles when he drove them.

6.The first car was later found on 26 February 2019, parked on a street, again with forged licence plates. 

7.The defendant has made full admission to the facts.

8.He has, on the face of it, no similar convictions.  There is a case where he was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment in May of 2019.  The information I have does not tell me whether that is a subsequent conviction or not, or when that offence was actually committed. Otherwise, the offences are gambling and drug-taking offences.  The defendant clearly has a record of consumption of cocaine.

9.In mitigation, the reason for stealing the vehicles appears to be to drive them.  They are not high-value vehicles and so the defendant was stealing them for convenience, have something to drive as he enjoys driving, gets some stimulation from it.  That is quite a common reason given for these kind of offences.

10.The defendant is aged 31.  He has a daughter aged 4 from a relationship some time ago with another lady, apparently not on the scene any more.  He has been a self-employed merchandiser and the vehicles are, as far as I can make out, undamaged and recovered.

11.Turning to the starting points for sentence, the only offence that actually has a defined starting point would be theft of the motor vehicles, this is a serious offence and a normal starting point for what I think one could describe as a run-of-the-mill case would be 3 years’ imprisonment.

12.As far as the other offences that the defendant has committed, they are part and parcel of the theft offences in the way he commits the theft.  You are going to be driving without insurance and, in order to facilitate the offence, forged number plates were used.

13.The defendant has never at this stage sought to obtain a driving licence.

14.There is nothing particularly exceptional about the case and the defendant had stolen vehicles of relatively low value for his own entertainment and enjoyment and convenience.  I see no reason why the normal starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment should not be adopted in this case.

15.Defendant is of course entitled to a one-third discount on all of the charges for which he has pleaded guilty to.

16.Now, I will now indicate the sentences I am going to impose on each charge.  These will be after the discount of one-third which I am going to give the defendant.  So the sentences will be as follows. 

(1) on the 1st charge, I have already indicated that the starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment. I will take that at 36 months. That will be reduced to 24 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1;

(2) on the 2nd charge, it will be a sentence of 4 weeks’ imprisonment;

(3) on the 3rd charge, a sentence of 4 weeks’ imprisonment and 12 months’ disqualification from driving, which is compulsory;

(4) on the 4th charge, again 24 months’ imprisonment;

(5) on the 5th charge, the forged number plate charge, it will be a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment;

(6) on the 6th charge, again 4 weeks’ imprisonment;

(7) on the 7th charge, 4 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ disqualification from driving.

17.The offences are committed on two separate occasions so they are liable to be served consecutively or at least partly consecutively.

18.Having regard to overall totality and the nature of this offence, what I am going to order is as follows.  I am going to order a total of 30 months’ imprisonment to be served.  I am going to achieve that by ordering Charges 1 to 3 to be served concurrently to each other, Charges 4 to 7 to be served concurrently to each other, but 6 months of 4 to 7 to be served consecutively to 1 to 3.  Gives an overall total of 30 months’ imprisonment. There is also the disqualifications.  Defendant does not have a licence so he cannot surrender it.  That is the order of the court.