HKSAR v. Tong Yiu Fung
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 546/2020 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 2 December 2020.
1. On 20 November 2020, the defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one charge of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance (“Charge 1”), one charge of forgery of documents, contrary to section 111(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (“Charge 2”), one charge of driving an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to section 52(1)(a) and 10(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (“Charge 3”) and one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4
|
DCCC 546/2020 [2021] HKDC 65 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 546 OF 2020 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.On 20 November 2020, the defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one charge of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance (“Charge 1”), one charge of forgery of documents, contrary to section 111(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (“Charge 2”), one charge of driving an unlicensed vehicle, contrary to section 52(1)(a) and 10(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (“Charge 3”) and one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance (“Charge 4”). 2.The private car with chassis number AZR60-0317200 (“the Vehicle”) was the motor vehicle involved in all 4 Charges. 3.The Summary of Facts which the defendant agreed to revealed that since October 2018, the Vehicle was parked on a street in Yuen Long with its two car plates, namely “VH8612” and “粵 Z 95H6 港” being dismantled and placed inside the Vehicle. On 3 January 2020 the Vehicle disappeared from that spot. 4.In the early hours of 6 January 2020, a private car bearing registration mark VY2593 was being towed by a truck and taken into a carpark in Yau Tong (“the Yau Tong Car Park”). The defendant, who was sitting on the front passenger seat of the said tow truck at the time, swiped his octopus card at the entrance barrier of the Yau Tong Car Park. 5.On 17 January 2020, the security manager of the Yau Tong Car Park discovered that the said car plate of VY2593 did not match the registration mark of VH8612 on the vehicle license. 6.On 18 January 2020, a security guard of the Yau Tong Car Park saw the car bearing registration mark of VY2593 being driven by a man out from the Yau Tong Car Park without paying the parking fee. Later on the same day this very car was found abandoned on a street in Wong Tai Sin. This car was in fact the Vehicle. Upon checking, its ignition switch was pried off and replaced by a makeshift one. 7.Upon investigation, a man used the phone number 6251 8899 to contact the tow truck company for towing service on 16 January 2020 and the defendant was the holder of this phone number. 8.“VY2593” has not been registered with the Transport Department. 9.The defendant was arrested subsequently. 10.At the time of his arrest, the defendant stated that he did not steal the car but he had driven it on that night. Upon house search, one octopus card was seized. Under caution, the defendant stated that he found this octopus card inside the Vehicle and used it for entering the said car park in Yau Tong. 11.Upon further interviews by the police, the defendant stated, inter alia, the following:-
12.Ms Stephanie Ko, appeared for the defendant, told this court that the defendant is a 25-years-old single man. He lived with his parents and his elder brother. He attained the education level of Form 2. He was working as a salesperson, earning a monthly salary of HK$12,000. 13.Ms Ko told this court that the defendant is remorseful. He was doing it for the reward of HK$5,000. He admitted to his misdeeds as soon as he was intercepted and has fully cooperated with the police. 14.Ms Ko also submitted that the defendant was neither the organiser nor the master-mind of the crime. Being a man with a clear record, the present case was an isolated incident for the defendant. Further, the Vehicle was not a particularly new or luxurious vehicle. It was confirmed by the prosecution that the Vehicle is valued at HK$40,000. 15.Mitigation letter from the defendant’s mother was submitted. 16.This court was also told that the defendant had been involved in taking part in volunteer work with various organisations in the past. 17.After taking into account all the circumstances of the case, submissions made on behalf of the defendant, I am satisfied that a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for Charge 1. For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 3, I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment. For Charge 4, I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks’ imprisonment. 18.In view of his guilty pleas, the defendant is entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount. The respective imprisonment sentence terms for the four Charges are thus reduced to: 16 months, 8 months, 4 weeks and 4 weeks. 19.In view of the close nexus of the 4 Charges and taking into account the totality principle, I am satisfied that wholly concurrent sentences are appropriate for all four Charges. 20.By virtue of section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, there is a mandatory disqualification for using a vehicle without third party insurances of not less than 12 months nor more than 3 years from the date of conviction unless the court finds special reasons. I find no special reasons in the present case not to disqualify the defendant. I am satisfied that a 12 months’ disqualification is appropriate. 21.The defendant is therefore sentenced as follow:
22.Sentences of all Charges are to run concurrently. 23.The defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months from 20 November 2020.
|