HKSAR v. Lo Kai Sing
|
DCCC755 & 1208/2009 (CONS) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 755 AND 1208 OF 2009 (CONS) ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of handling stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210. Facts of the Case 2.In the afternoon of 7th March 2009, D2 was asked by D1 to use his identity card to pawn a Rolex watch for $4000. 3.D1 gave him $200 as a reward. 4.At all material time, D2 knew that the Rolex watch was a stolen property. Criminal Record 5.He had 2 previous convictions: -
Mitigation:- 6.D2 is 21 of age; he comes from a broken family. His mother is in Court to support him. 7.The Defendant in his own letter said that he regretted very much for turning a deaf ear to his mother’s advice .He knows that his mother still stands by him, she travels a long way to see him in prison and she is the only person he can rely upon. He undertakes that he will be a good son after his release from prison. 8.He is currently serving a 24 months imprisonment. 9.The Defence also urged upon me to take into account of the facts that the Rolex watch was pawned for $4000 and the Defendant was rewarded for $200. Sentence 11.I was referred to the case of HKSAR v Xiao Wei (2004) 1 HKC 520, which was also a case of handling stolen goods. The Appellant’s sentence of a charge of handling stolen goods was reduced from 3 years to 18 months. 12.The Appellant was in fact a persistent offender and therefore the court took a higher starting point. 13.In the present case, there was no evidence to show that D2 was aware of the Rolex case came from a domestic burglary case. Although the prosecution case showed that the watch was pawned by D2 within a few hours after D1 had burgled into the victim’s premises, when the victim was out for her own business. 14.The estimate value of the Rolex watch was about $3000 while D2 received $4000 from the pawn shop. 15.D2’s reward was only $200. D1 pocket the $3,800. 16.D2, when he pawned the Rolex watch, he had to show his identity card to the pawnshop. As the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Xiao Wei said, “ it revealed a considerable lack of sophistication in his method of converting the stolen watch into cash thereby exposing himself.” 17.When I passed the sentence on the Defendant, I bear in mind of all the mitigating factors before me, including the fact that the Defendant has pleaded guilty before me, the nature of the case and the special circumstances, I , therefore, take a starting point of 12 months and reduce the sentence to 7 months. I also order the 3 months to be run concurrently with DCCC 570/2009.
|
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 755/2009