HKSAR v. Yip Chun Chung

DCCC 283/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 283 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to Charge 2, i.e, theft. He stole seven drain covers, property belonging to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Those seven drain covers were stolen from the junction of Hing Wah Street and Tung Chau Street in Cheung Sha Wan area.

2.The prosecution have handed up a photo album consisting of five photos.  The photos clearly show what those drain covers were and where they were originally placed.  They were originally placed over a drainage near a flower bed under a flyover in the Cheung Sha Wan area.

3.According to the Facts, the defendant stole these seven drain covers because he needed money to pay for his wife’s medical treatment. He sold the metal to a recycling company for only $50.

4.He co-operated with the police and admitted his guilt frankly.

5.The defendant is now aged 44.  Between the years of 1986 and early 2013 he was in court on 21 occasions being convicted of offences of different kinds, including a few dishonesty offences.  The earliest conviction and actually the earliest dishonest offence he committed was back in 1986, one for theft.  He also committed robbery, attempted theft, attempted burglary, and his last dishonest conviction was for attempted burglary in July 2010. 

6.According to his antecedent, the defendant received education up to Form 1 level.  He was a cleaner by occupation. Counsel says he earned about $250 per day.  The defendant also has some public subsidy in the amount of about $1,000 per month.  Prior to his arrest he lived with his co-habitee.  Counsel says that lady was wheelchair-bound.  The lady also relied on public assistance and the defendant had to tend to her and the defendant committed the present offence of theft because he needed money to pay for his co-habitee’s medical expenses.  Counsel said the two have been co-habiting for more than 10 years and the lady required physiotherapy and also psychiatric therapy.

7.Counsel points out that the seven drain covers were not very valuable property, they were only sold to the recycling company for a mere $50. 

8.But it cannot be denied that these drain covers were public property.  They were part of the drainage system as depicted by the photographs.  They were used to cover the drainage, preventing the branches, leaves, debris, rubbish from falling into the drainage otherwise the drainage would be blocked.  Counsel admits that the defendant’s thievish act would cause damage to the system because if the drainage was blocked, flooding would result.

9.But the damage of the defendant’s thievish act is more than that.  I would say it would also cause danger to someone who would appear around the drainage, for example, the flower bed workers, the cleaners who have to be there, and even people who would adopt shortcuts in order to cross the road and thereby have to cross the flower beds.  And if the drainage was uncovered they might fall into the drainage and hurt themselves.  So the defendant’s thievish act is not just the taking away of a few pieces of heavy metal causing inconvenience to the government.  His greedy act is actually an act that might cause serious consequences as named.

10.He is not a first-time offender.  He had committed a number of dishonest offences in the past. While he says he needed the money to pay for his co-habitee’s medical expenses that is not a good reason.  I view his thievish act as a serious offence.  I adopt 12 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.  I give him one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  I will send him to prison for 8 months.

11.The defendant is now serving a 14 month sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs which was imposed upon him in the Magistracy earlier.  That is a separate offence.  I see no reason why the present sentence should run in whole or in part concurrent with that sentence.  I thus order the whole of the present 8 months sentence to run consecutively to his serving sentence of 14 months.

(J. Lam)  District Judge