HKSAR v. Wong Chiu Hei

DCCC68/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 68 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of nine charges. Three of those charges relate either to the handling or theft of motor vehicles. There are related driving offences in relation to two of those offences. The defendant is 20 years of age.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose, in relation to the first four charges related to the handling of a motor vehicle, driving that vehicle without insurance and a driving hence, and possession of a forged licence on 23 August. 

3.The facts were that, in May 2011, a Mr Wong bought the car the subject of that charge, which I am going to refer to as “car A”, for $23,000, and it was registered under Mr Wong’s name.  He allowed his son to use the car.  At about 1.45 am, on 21 August, the son parked the car at the roadside in Yuen Long.  It was left secure but unattended.  When he returned, at 11.15 the same day, he discovered that the car was missing. 

4.At 2 am, on 23 August, whilst the son was looking for the stolen car in the Yuen Long area, he came across car A at the roadside of Tai Shu Ha Road West in Yuen Long.  He noticed, however, that the car was displaying the front and rear registration plates of a different vehicle.  He made a report to the police and remained at the scene.

5.About half an hour later police officers arrived and the defendant approached the car A, together with a female.  He got into the vehicle, switched on the lights and the engine and was sitting in the driver’s seat when he was approached by the police officers.  He produced a Hong Kong driving licence in his name for inspection, and it was later found that this was a forged driving licence.

6.The police found the front number plate of the vehicle on the rear seat carpet, just behind the front passenger seat.  He also discovered three pairs of pliers, a screwdriver, hammers inside a compartment of the car.  The owner’s son was said that none of these tools were in the car before it was stolen.  The police also discovered that the vehicle licensing disc HL776 - that it was not the original licence disc - was displayed on the windscreen of car A.  It was only after checking the engine of the vehicle that it was revealed that car A was, in fact, Mr Wong’s car. 

7.The defendant was arrested and the vehicle licence disc was also found to be forged.  The son of the owner checked the car and found that the vehicle hi-fi, which was valued at $3,000, was missing, as was the original licence disc displayed on the windscreen, the original registration plate on the rear of the car, and a vehicle licence certificate. He also noticed that the ignition switch system of the car had been replaced. 

8.The defendant, under caution, said that he had borrowed the car from a friend outside a bar in Tuen Mun.  About the driving licence, he said that he had bought it for a $100 about a year previously. Somewhat surprisingly, given the defendant’s record, he was given bail in connection with those offences.  It was whilst on bail that he committed the next two sets of offences.  Those offences were committed on 31 August, just a week after he had been arrested for the first set of offences. 

9.The facts in relation to those offences are that, in 2007, a Mr Lau bought a private car, car B, for $65,000.  On 27 August he parked it at an open space of the Kam Po Car Park in San Wan Road, Sheung Shui.  He switched off the anti-theft alarm system and secured the vehicle, and left it unattended.  At 10 pm, on 28 August, he returned and found that the car was missing. 

10.The third car involved in these proceedings, car C, was purchased in November 2007 by a Mr Wong Yau-lee for $18,000.  At 10 o'clock, on the night of 29 August, he parked his car in the open space near Fung Ka Wai, Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long.  He switched on the anti-theft alarm system and left the car secured but unattended. 

11.At 10 past 1 in the morning, on 31 August, a Mr Wong Lam-chung was having a rest on the driver’s seat of his vehicle which was parked at a location near to where a car C was parked.  He noticed car B arriving and he saw two persons on board being driven to the scene by the defendant. There was also another man, who was D2 in these proceedings, in the car.  One of the men got out of car B and walked to car C and tampered with car C, causing the hazard light of car C to flash. 

12.Mr Wong Lam-chung felt suspicious, so he secretly made a report to the police with his mobile phone.  Moments later the police arrived in two marked police vehicles.  They blocked the only exhibit of where the two vehicles were parked.  The officer put on their flashing lights and switched on their sirens.  Cars B and C were then driven in reverse at high speed towards the two police vehicles.  Car C collided with one of the vehicles, damaging the left fender and bumper.  That car accelerated to about 80 kilometres per hour and escaped from the location successfully. 

13.Car B, which was the car driven by this defendant, collided with the other police vehicle, damaging the right bumper and dislocating the right fog lamp.  After the collision the police officers rushed to car B and found D1 to be in the driver’s seat.  At that time the escape was already blocked by the police vehicle, but the defendant was still trying to drive the car to push away that police vehicle. 

14.Despite repeated warnings the defendant refused to switch off the engine of the car, and finally the police were driven to smashing the glass window of the car and subduing the defendant, who was arrested.  The police found that the original number plates being displayed on the front and rear of the car, MU8676, instead of the original number plates. The vehicle licence had been changed.  It was subsequently confirmed that this was forged.  The ignition switch had been prised, and the owner found that the original steering wheel, which he valued at a thousand dollars, had been replaced by another wheel which did not belong to him.  The defendant, of course, had no valid driving licence and he was not insured.

15.Under caution the defendant claimed that he had been recruited by the other defendant, D2, to steal the car on 31 August and that the other defendant had driven car B to pick him up.  He said that he had no valid driving licence in Hong Kong and admitted driving without insurance. He denied having taken anything from car B.

16.The defendant has a number of previous convictions.  He has been before the court on seven previous occasions, and most recently on 14 December in 2011 for theft from motor vehicles he was sent to the DATC.  Those offences were, of course, committed before the offences for which he is before this court.  Prior to that he has a number of drugs offences recorded and offences in connection with forgery of documents under the Road Traffic Ordinance. 

17.The defendant was released from custody about a month before the commission of the offences on 23 August.  On the previous occasion I adjourned the case for reports as required under section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which states that before any young offender can be sent to prison the court has to investigate alternative sentencing options to see if any of those would be appropriate. 

18.The defendant is a drug addict, so he is not suitable to go to the training centre, although being a drug addict is suitable for remaining in the drug addiction treatment centre.  However, in my view, that would be an inappropriate sentence given the gravity of these charges, given the fact that they were committed so shortly after he was released from custody, and also given the fact that the offences of 31 August were committed just days after he had been released on bail for the offences of 23 August. These are very serious offences.

19.I am told that the defendant is single.  He lives with his father, who is 45, and a stepmother, who is 35.  And he has a young stepbrother who is 5.  He was educated to Form 2.  He has had a number of jobs during his career, and he has been drug dependent since 2006.  I am told that the offences were committed to earn money to purchase drugs.

20.The reports show that the defendant comes from a broken family in which he was all along deprived of proper and adequate parental supervision.  He became streetwise and went astray in his early teens and started delinquent behaviour at an early age.  It also notes that he became drug dependent. 

21.I considered the question of totality.  It seems to me irrelevant, given the circumstances of these cases, whether the defendant was merely handling or stealing the cars.  He is clearly part of a group of people, if his admission to handling is right, who steal cars and change their identities.  These are serious offences.  They cause enormous problems for the owners, and obviously these cars are driven round the streets of Hong Kong by uninsured drivers. 

22.For each of the theft and handling charges I take a starting point of three years, and I reduce those to two to reflect the guilty plea.  The only mitigation in this case is the guilty plea. 

23.In respect of the 1st charge, the defendant will go to prison for 2 years.  The 2nd charge I take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.  I reduce that to 6 to reflect the guilty plea, and I order that 2 months of that sentence run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 1.  On Charge 3 I sentence the defendant to 1 month’s imprisonment, to be served concurrently.  And on Charge 4, I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 4 months, and order that 2 months of that be sentenced consecutively. 

24.On Charge 4, I also disqualify the defendant from driving for a period of 1 year. 

25.On Charges 5 and 6 I take starting points of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce them to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea.  And I order that 4 months of the sentence on Charge 6 run consecutive to Charge 5, and that 6 months of that total sentence be served consecutive to Charges 1 to 4. That brings the total for those six offences to 34 months.

26.I reminded myself that normally where offences are committed whilst on bail wholly consecutive sentences should be imposed. But I have looked at the question of totality in this case when arriving at the sentence. 

27.Charge 7 is the offence of dangerous driving. In my view this was a bad case of dangerous driving.  It was deliberate dangerous driving.  He drove deliberately into a police car on which there was a police officer on board, putting his safety at risk, and then repeatedly tried to drive his car to push away the police car.  Despite repeated warnings the defendant refused to switch off his engine and the police were obliged to smash the window to arrest the defendant. 

28.I take a starting point of 3 years for that offence, reduce it to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea and order that 6 months run consecutive to the prior sentences.  I also disqualify the defendant from driving for 3 years. 

29.In respect of Charge 9 I sentence him to 1 month imprisonment concurrent, and on Charge 11, 4 months’ imprisonment, 2 months consecutive to the other sentences, and disqualify him from driving for 2 years. 

30.The total sentence, therefore, is one of 42 months’ imprisonment, and the disqualification is for 3 years. 

31.What that means is this, is that if, when you are released from prison you drive in the next three years, you will commit an offence of driving whilst disqualified, and for that offence you will be sent to prison.