HKSAR v. Yu Sing Mong
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 302/2022 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 16 May 2023.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges :-
Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 302/2022 [2023] HKDC 627 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 302 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ The Pleas 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges :-
Summary of facts 2.At 10:20 am, on 25th August,2021, PC 8159 and other officers arrived at Sau Fai House, Sau Mau Ping Estate, (the “Offence Location”). PC 8159 spotted the Defendant and another person were standing in between two motorcycles and they were tampering with one of the parked motorcycle. 3.PC 8159 stopped them. The Defendant took a black cross-body bag and a bottle of water from the left handle of the motorcycle TZ 4511 (the “Motorcycle”). 4.Upon enquiries, the Defendant said that the Motorcycle did not belong to him and he did not know the owner. He only hung his belongings there. 5.PC 8159 contacted the registered owner of TZ4511 who confirmed that TZ4511 was currently parked in Tuen Mun (Charge 2). 6.The Defendant then claimed that he parked his own vehicle – NY3635 in a multi-storey car park nearby. 7.PC 8159 escorted the Defendant to NY 3635. 8.A number plate MS 673 and vehicle license belonging to a motorcycle with registration number MS673 were found inside the car. 9.Further investigation revealed that the registered owner (PW1) of MS673, had already made a report to the police about his missing motorcycle on 11 April 2021. 10.PW1 attended the police station on 27 August 2021 to check the Motorcycle, PW1 confirmed that the Motorcycle was MS673, but its shell and handle had already been replaced. The vehicle licence and his insurance policy had gone missing. (Charge 1) CCTV 11.CCTV at the vicinity of Sau Fai House captured the Defendant driving the Motorcycle to park at the Offence Location at 8:55 am on 25 August 2021. He left at 9:00 am. He returned at 9:48 a.m. and stayed there until the arrival of the police. The Defendant’s driving licence 12.The Defendant never possessed a driving licence for driving motorcycles. (Charge 3) 13.The insurance policy of the Motorcycle did not cover the defendant to drive (Charge 4) Criminal record 14.The defendant has 8 court appearances with 15 previous convictions that including: -
Antecedent/mitigation 15.The defendant is 43 years old, divorced. He co-habituated with Madam Yu, they have a son aged 12 years old. 16.There are also a number of letters before me, including one from the defendant to tell me that he committed the present offences due to unemployment in the Covid period. His wife also said that he is a responsible person to his family. 17.Mitigating factors are: -
18.The defence suggested an overall sentence of about 9 months for the present offences is sufficient to reflect the gravity of the offences, if PO order is not to be considered. Sentence 19.Regarding the maximum sentences of the individual offences:
20.As rightly point out by the defence in HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming CACC 356/2000 that: -
21.While in the case of HKSAR v SO Pak Lun CACC 276/2013, the Court of Appeal said that:-
22.As such, given the number of offences and the serious nature of the case, a probation order is clearly inappropriate. Charge 1 – Theft of Motorcycle Charge 2 - Forgery of Document 23.In the present case, the defendant had stolen the vehicle for a period of 4 ½ months. Not only the motorcycle owner suffered the loss of a motorcycle (valued at $12,000), it also caused him inconvenience. 24.The defendant also used another number plate (charge 2) to prevent the police from locating the motorcycle. This is a calculated move and amounted to premeditation. 25.I considered that the appropriate starting point for charge 1 should be 2 years, given his guilty plea, it reduces to 16 months. 26.I also impose a disqualification order of 2 years in respect of all classes of vehicle under S. 69 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374. 27.As to charge 2, I take a starting point of 12 months, reduces to 8 months after 1/3 discount. Charge 3- driving without a valid license Charge 4 – driving without 3rd party insurance 28.As stated in the summary of facts, the defendant never possesses a driving license for driving a motorcycle and clearly the insurance certificate did not cover him in driving the stolen motorcycle. 29.These are serious offences in particular that the defendant never past a driving test for driving the motorcycle. 30.In such circumstances, I consider that 6 weeks as the starting point for charge 3 is appropriate, given the usual 1/3 discount, reduce to 4 weeks’ imprisonment. 31.As to charge 4, it has been reiterated in many cases, that when a person drives without 3rd party’s insurance, when any road users meet with car accidents, they are not cover by insurance for compensation. 32.It is the third time that the defendant was convicted for this offence, obviously he has not learnt from past experience and the past sentences served no deterrent effect upon him. 33.I disagree with the defence that the 3 months starting point would serve the purpose. 34.Against this background, I take the maximum sentence of 12 months as the starting point for charge 4, reduce to 8 months after 1/3 discount. 35.In his first and second convictions in 2003 and 2007, he was disqualified for 16 months and 2 years respectively. This is the third time that he is convicted for such an offence. I disagree with the defence that the disqualification period should fall between 12 to 18 months. 36.To this end, I impose a disqualification order in respect of all classes of vehicles for a period of 3 years. Both charge 1 and 4 ‘s disqualification orders are to run concurrently. Compensation Order 37.This morning, the prosecution informed me that the motorcycle has been altered. The owner could not re-used it again. The value of the motorcycle worth $12,000. The Prosecution asked for $12,000 compensation. 38.The defence informed me that it was the intention of the defendant to pay $12,000 compensation in Oct,2022 when he first indicated his guilty plea in the District Court. 39.I am also told that this $12,000 has been deposited in the District Court account office and is now ready to pay to the motorcycle owner. 40.As such, I order the defendant to pay $12,000 to the victim Mr. Wong Chiu-dang as stated in charge 1. 41.In view of the compensation order, I reduce 2 months’ imprisonment in charge 1, now comes down to 14 months. 42.The individual sentence after 1/3 discount: -
Totality 43.I order sentences in charge 2 to 4 to run concurrently. A total of 8 months. 4 months to run consecutively to charge 1. 44.The total sentence is 18 months. (14 + 4 = 18 months) Disqualification order 45.Both charge 1 and 4 disqualification orders are to run concurrently. A total of 3 years. KT/744/22 46.I also order the probation order in KT/744/22 to be discharged.
|
Cases cited in this judgment