HKSAR v. Lung Kin-ho and Another

DCCC 683/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 683 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.D1 PG to charge 1, 2 and 5. Charge 6 is the alternative charge to charge 5. D1 and D2 PNG to remaining charges. This Court ordered that those charges to be left on Court’s file and not to be proceeded with, without the leave of the Court.

Charge 1: Using a false instrument with intent that was a vehicle licence dated 14/11/2008.

Charge 2: Using a false instrument with intent that was a OFTA licence TR S003 and audit No. 0480818.

Charge 5: Handling stolen goods

Namely, a taxi KF 1433

Facts :-

2. 1. KF 5046 was managed by PW1. PW1 confirmed that D1 was not the driver of KF 5046

2. Eager Star was the registered owner and was in charge of taxi KB1433. It was reported missing in May, 2007.

3. On 14/6/2009, PW1 saw KF 5046 setting down passenger in Tsuen Wan, PW1 got on KF 5046 and confronted the D1 that he had never hired him to drive the taxi. D1 took the cash box and left. PW1 made a report to the police.

4. The police checked the chassis of KF 5046 and found that it belonged to taxi KB1433.

5. In front of the windscreen, there was a motor vehicle licence KF 5046 being issued on 14/11/2008 which covered another 2 vehicle licences of KF 5046 for the previous years.

6. There was also a OFTA licence covering on top of the other 2 OFTA licence.

7. Under caution, D1 said that :-

(i) He did not know that it was a stolen taxi.

(ii) He had driven the taxi for about 3 months.

(iii) He rented it from Ah Fai, but he had no contact number of Ah Fai.

(iv) He felt suspicious about the rent charged by Ah Fai as the daily rental was $270 while the market rate was $290. He was not required to pay deposit.

(v) When he returned the taxi to Ah Fai at a designated place, he would put the key at the tail pipe and $270 under the driver seat’s carpet.

Mitigation:-

3.He is 48 year old and has a clear record. He was unemployed since this incident and also has since then suffered from psychotic disorder.

Sentence:-

4.The Defence has referred me to the case of  HKSAR v Yip Tak Wing DCCC 574/2010, in which it referred to a number of appeal cases involving handling stolen vehicles and etc.

5.In HKSAR v Lam Yui Yiu CACC 373/2006,  a  sentence of 4 years of attempted to handling stolen taxi was upheld.

6.In the present case, the D knew that it was a stolen taxi for at least 2 months before the arrest. Every day, he continued to rent the taxi from Ah Fai for $270. He said that he had no means to contact Ah Fai.

7.I rejected this assertion because when there was an accident or when the taxi needed to be repaired, surely, the D needed to contact Ah Fai in one way or the other.

8.It was not as simple as putting the $270 under the car seat and the key at the back of the tail pipe.

9.Most of the taxi are managed by taxi companies and agencies to deal with the daily matters, such as insurance, registration of the vehicle licenses, to answer the police‘s request for information of the drivers for traffic matters.

10.The D clearly knew where to find “Ah Fai”, it was just because that the D refused to disclose the identity of the other culprits or he was trying to reduce his level of culpability.

11.On the other hand, the D claimed that he only had knowledge that the taxi was only stolen for 2 months. In what circumstances that he found it out? He had been driving KF 5046 for at least 2 ½ years prior to the offence.

12.He admitted that the he was fined $320 each for 2 traffic summons in November 2007 and December 2008 respectively.  KB 1433 had gone missing since May/2007 and the chassis number of KF 5046 was in fact the chassis number of KB 1433.

13.How did KF 5046 renew its vehicle license every year remained unknown?

14.All the 3 charges’ maximum sentence was 14 years.

15.Charge 1 and 2 were licenses to facilitate the daily running of the taxi. The D was the taxi driver for KF 5046.  In my view, they were equally as serious as the handling charge; the false motor vehicle license on the windscreen was to prevent the police from discovering the stolen taxi.

16.Against this background and having considered all the mitigating factors, I order that a term of 4 years was the appropriate sentences for the 3 charges as the starting point; I reduce the sentence to 2 years 8 months and ordered all sentences to be run concurrently.