HKSAR v. Chandra Sumanto

DCCC 1642/2025

[2026] HKDC 999

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1642 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to 3 charges today, theft, contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance which involves the theft of a motorcycle on 26 June 2025; two further driving offences consequent upon that theft, that is using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and driving without a valid driving licence.

2.The facts are straightforward and agreed. The victim, PW1, was in possession of a motorbike which had been loaned to him by the owner.  He parked that vehicle on 25 June 2025 in a parking lot near Java Road.  His recollection of the events is that he may well have left the key in the ignition or a key attached to the vehicle.  He returned in the small hours of the next day, 26 June 2025, to find that the vehicle had gone missing.  It was reported missing to the police and discovered by the police on 2 July 2025.  On that day in the evening, the defendant was intercepted by police when he approached the vehicle.  The keys to the vehicle were found in the right pocket of the defendant.

3.The defendant on arrest made admissions under caution.  He said he had taken the vehicle for fun because the keys were attached.  He had driven it to the parking lot where it was found.  He had discarded a global positioning system which had originally been put on the motor vehicle and of course he did not have a driving licence or third party insurance in respect of the vehicle.

4.Those facts clearly evidenced the offence and the defendant was convicted.  I also note the estimated value of the vehicle is put at $10,000. 

5.The defendant is aged 35.  He has a number of criminal records, 3 total appearances in court from 2017 up until to recently in 2025.  Originally convicted of drug offences, sent to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and then a substantial period of imprisonment for doing acts preparatory to trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The defendant has also been convicted of theft from a vehicle and blackmail, receiving a sentence of 5 months’ imprisonment in October of 2025.  So the 3^rd offence would be of a similar offence to the one we have today being an offence of dishonesty. 

6.As far as the defendant’s mitigation is set out, it can be found in a set of submissions put forward by Mr Yim.  As far as personal background is concerned, the defendant at the time when this was written is said to be 33 years old.  I think his antecedents say he is 35.  He is single, living with his girlfriend, had been working as a salesman at a hardware store up to December 2024 earning about $20,000 a month, educated up to Form 6 level in Hong Kong.

7.I refer to some sentencing authorities. Although there is no guideline sentence, sentences in the region of 3 years’ imprisonment have been imposed for theft of vehicle.  In respect of the theft of motorcycle, which is usually a less valuable object, starting points in the region of 30 months’ imprisonment have been considered by the court.  Of course, each case is determined on its own facts and in this case I must, I will set out the relevant facts in a minute. 

8.The defendant asks for a lenient sentence.  He has written a letter of mitigation himself, and asks for a full one-third discount. 

9.Now the mitigating factors put out by the defence in respect of this offence are that it was an impulsive theft which was facilitated by the fact that the key of the vehicle had been left in the ignition, which shows that the vehicle was not the subject of a prior target and there was no planning beforehand.  There is no syndicated involvement in this case and no coordination with other people, which are also aggravating factors and no evidence of any broader criminal enterprise.  It is said to be a spontaneous and isolated act.  There has been no attempt to disguise the vehicle, which shows a lack of planning and the unsophisticated nature of the offence.

10.The defendant appears to have discarded the global positioning system, more I can describe as a defensive measure to avoid the discovery of the vehicle.  The vehicle itself is a motorcycle.  It is not a luxury vehicle.  A value estimated at some $10,000 which would put it towards the lower end of these cases of theft of vehicle.  There is also no evidence of damage to the vehicle and the vehicle has been recovered by the police.

11.Defendant admitted the matter shortly after arrest and has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  Defence submits the offence is out of character, but I do not think it is, given the defendant’s previous records of theft. 

12.Turning to these starting points for sentencing in this case.  There are no obvious aggravating factors and there are a number of mitigating factors relating to the low value of the vehicle, the short period that it was taken, the ease and lack of sophistication in the theft of this vehicle.  I am going to take, having regard to these factors, a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for this offence.  I will reduce that to 16 months’ imprisonment for the defendant on the 1^st charge of theft.

13.On the 2^nd charge, which is one of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  There is a compulsory or mandatory disqualification. I will order disqualification in this case for 2 years for the defendant.

14.On the 3^rd Charge, I will take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

15.Having regard to the overall totality, the offences are all part and parcel of one event and so I shall order that the sentences all be served concurrently to a total of 16 months’ imprisonment and a 2-year disqualification from driving.