HKSAR v. Poon Yiu Fai

DCCC888/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 888 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant was convicted of charges 2 and 3 after trial. I have just delivered the reasons for verdict and would not repeat details of the prosecution case.

2.In gist, a burglary took place on 27 April 2010.  A lady’s wristwatch was one of the stolen properties.  The defendant pawned the watch for $14,000 on 3 May and he provided a false address to the pawnshop staff.

Mitigation

3.The defendant is now 36 years old and educated up to Form 3.  His wife is now living on the mainland China.  The defendant has two sons and one daughter ranging from 16 to 21 years old. It was submitted that the handling offence that the defendant committed was not the serious type and the court is urged to pass a lenient sentence.

Sentence

4.The defendant was unemployed at the material time.  He had been working as a decoration worker and telephone maintenance technician.  The defendant had 13 previous convictions.  His latest convictions related to two counts of using a false instrument and the total sentence was increased to 20 months on appeal (HCMA223/2009 refers).  The defendant was released from prison on 1 April 2010.  And on 3 May, just more than one month after his discharge, the defendant committed another offence again.  This is an aggravating factor.

5.The offence of burglary charge and that of handling attracts the same maximum sentence of 14 years.  In fact, the verdict of handling is the statutory alternative to the burglary charge.  The defendant was convicted after trial and there exists no substantial mitigating grounds, except that the defendant did agree to most of the prosecution case to which he should have some discount in sentence.  There is no sentencing tariff for handling offences.  The subject matter of this handling offence is an expensive Rolex wristwatch which was pawned for $14,000.

6.As this offence was committed shortly after the defendant’s discharge, I will take 2½ years as the starting point and reduce the sentence by 3 months to 27 months.

7.As regards to the 3rd charge, the maximum sentence is 12 months.  I adopt a starting point of 1 month and as there is material mitigating factor, I sentence the defendant to 1 month for this charge. 

8.On the other hand, I have to consider the totality principle.  I will treat the defendant leniently and order that the two sentences are to run concurrently.  To conclude, I sentence the defendant to a jail term of 27 months.

Defendant's applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed by Court of Appeal. Please refer to CACC36/2011 dated 16 August 2011