DCCC834/2023 HKSAR v. CHAN YEE MAN AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC834/2023
區域法院（刑事）H.H. Judge G. Lam15/4/2024[2024] HKDC 603
DCCC834/2023
由此
A A
B DCCC 834/2023 B
[2024] HKDC 603
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 834 OF 2023 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
CHAN Yee-man (D1)
CHEUNG Chi-wah (D2)
I I
FUNG Chi-keung (D3)
J ____________ J
K K
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
L Date : 16 April 2024 L
Present : Ms. Christine Leung, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
M Ms. Winnie Chu instructed by M/s KCL & M
Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for
D1.
N N
Mr. Jacky Lai instructed by M/s Fan Wong & Tso,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
O Mr. Patrick Cheung instructed by M/s Kwok, Ng O
& Chan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
P for D3. P
Offences : (1), (4), (6) & (7) Theft（盜竊）
Q (2) Criminal damage（刑事損壞） Q
(3), (5) & (8) Driving without a valid driving
R licence（駕駛時無有效駕駛執照） R
(9) Failure to produce proof of identity1（沒有遵
S 從要求出示身分證明以供查閱） S
T T
1
Contrary to section 49(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap.245.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
B B
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
C C
D D
D1 and D3 face a joint charge of "Theft" (Charge 1). D1 to D3
E face a joint charge of "Theft" (Charge 7). D1 alone faces a charge of E
F "Criminal damage" (Charge 2) and a charge of "Failure to produce proof of F
G identity" (Charge 9). D2 alone faces a charge of "Theft" (Charge 6). D3 G
H
alone faces 3 charges of "Driving without a valid driving licence" (Charges H
3, 5 and 8) and a charge of "Theft" (Charge 4).
I I
J J
2. D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 7 and 9. D2 pleaded guilty
K K
to Charge 7. D3 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. I granted the
L L
prosecution's application to leave Charge 6 against D2 in the court file; not
M M
to be proceeded against him without leave of court.
N N
O Summary of Facts O
P P
Background
Q Q
3. D3's Classes 2 (Light Goods Vehicle) and 18 (Medium Goods
R R
Vehicle) driving licence expired on 18 February 2020.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
1st incident
B B
C 4. Sunplus Contractors Limited (VC1) had a construction site at C
D Tung Chung Temporary Street Market, 6 Fu Tung Street, Tung Chung, D
E
Lantau Island (Location 1). E
F F
5. About 8:00 a.m. on 7 February 2023, Mr. Wong (Project
G G
Manager of VC1) found 100 pieces of stainless steel drain covers (Property
H H
1; valued at $500,000) and a CCTV camera (Property 2; valued at $2,000)
I I
missing from Location 1. The Police was alerted.
J J
K K
6. CCTV footage of 6 February 2023 captured D1 (not masked)
L pushing an orange trolley outside Location 1 at 2300 hours. About 2320 L
M hours, he was pushing an orange trolley which contained some rectangular M
N silver heavy items passing outside HKFEW Wong Cho Bau Secondary N
School (Charge 1). Between 2356 and 2358 hours, D1 walked towards
O O
Property 2 and destroyed it with a stick (Charge 2).
P P
Q Q
7. CCTV footage also captured a medium goods vehicle WL145
R R
(V1) leaving Location 1 around 0044 hours on 7 February 2023. In his
S S
video recorded interview ("VRI") conducted on 5 March 2023, D3 admitted
T T
that he drove V1 to Location 1 at the request of a male. He saw that male
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
pushing a trolley which contained drain covers. He believed that the male
B B
and D1 had stolen those drain covers from Location 1. Yet, D3 drove that
C C
male and D1 together with Property 1 from Location 1 to Yuen Long and
D D
received $2,000 as his reward (Charges 1 and 3).
E E
F F
2nd incident
G G
8. Wang Yu Engineering Company Limited (VC2) had a storage
H H
site at Lot 2597 in DD4, Shek Lau Po, Tung Chung Road, Tung Chung,
I I
Lantau Island (Location 2).
J J
K K
9. About 7:30 a.m. on 13 February 2023, Mr. Yu (Foreman of
L VC2) found one roll of 500m water wire (Property 3; valued at $8,000) and L
M one roll of 400m copper wire (Property 4; valued at $60,000) missing from M
N Location 2. The Police was alerted. N
O O
10. In his VRI conducted on 5 March 2023, D3 admitted that a
P P
male had asked him to collect some goods from Tung Chung for $2,000. He
Q Q
thus drove a light goods vehicle WL1970 (V2) to Location 2. D3 assisted
R R
two males by loading Properties 3 and 4 onto V2. He then drove V2 from
S S
Location 2 to an unknown location and received $2,000. When shown the
T T
relevant CCTV footage, D3 identified himself and V2. D3 admitted that he
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
believed Properties 3 and 4 belonged to a company instead of the two males
B B
(Charges 4 and 5).
C C
D D
3rd incident
E E
11. BYME Engineering (HK) Limited (VC3) had a construction
F F
site for the expansion project of North Lantau Hospital at Yu Tung Road,
G G
Tung Chung, Lantau Island (Location 3). On 3 March 2023, 41 rolls of
H H
copper tape (Property 5; valued at $178,350) were stored at Location 3.
I I
J J
12. In the early hours on 4 March 2023, PC 15043 (PW3) saw D1
K K
to D3 stealing Property 5 from Location 3. In particular, about 0245 hours,
L D2 threw a black long bag into the grass area outside Location 3 near L
M Lamppost AC1504A ("the Entering Point"). About 0255 hours, D2 placed a M
N ladder on the grass area outside the Entering Point. About 0500 hours, D1 N
and D2 climbed over the external wall at the Entering Point using the ladder
O O
and entered Location 3. About 0520 hours, D1 and D2 threw Property 5
P P
from the Entering Point out of Location 3. About 0537 hours, D3 brought
Q Q
two rubbish bins to the pavement near the Entering Point. D1 and D2 put
R R
Property 5 into the two rubbish bins. About 0600 hours, D3 used a pallet
S S
truck and loaded a rubbish bin which contained some of Property 5 onto V1
T T
and drove V1 away. About 0614 hours, D2 pushed a pallet truck to the
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
Entering Point and used it to transport the other rubbish bin which contained
B B
the remaining Property 5. This is Charges 7 and 8.
C C
D D
13. About 0616 hours, police officers intercepted D1 to D3 for
E E
enquiry. DPC 13150 (PW4) asked D1 for identity proof. D1 claimed that he
F F
did not carry any identity proof with him (Charge 9).
G G
H 14. PW4 arrested D1 at 0635 hours on 4 March 2023. In his VRI H
I conducted on 4 March 2023, D1 claimed that he saw 2 rubbish bins I
J
containing some re-sellable metal and thought they were rubbish. He J
therefore agreed with D2 to take them away and re-sell them for money.
K K
L L
15. DPC 7444 arrested D2 at 0625 hours on 4 March 2023. In his
M M
VRIs conducted on 4 and 5 March 2023, D2 claimed that he thought
N N
Property 5 was rubbish and planned to throw it away. He and D1 then put
O O
Property 5 into the rubbish bins. D2 intended to discard the rubbish bin
P P
which contained some of Property 5 at the hillside.
Q Q
R 16. DPC 14597 arrested D3 at 0630 hours on 4 March 2023. R
S
Under caution, he claimed that D2 called him around 4:00 a.m. asking him S
to collect D1's and D2's stolen goods at Tung Chung. In his VRI conducted
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
on 4 March 2023, D3 stated that D2 called him that morning asking him to
B B
collect their stolen properties for $2,000. D3 also admitted having driven
C C
V1 with two rubbish bins and a pallet truck to Location 3. D3 assisted D1
D D
and D2 by loading a rubbish bin containing some of Property 5 onto V1.
E E
F F
Mitigation
G G
D1
H H
I 17. He is 32 and has 6 conviction records, which included 1 I
J
"Conspiracy to rob" offence, 4 "Theft" offences and a number of other J
offences. His counsel Ms. Chu informed me that D1 is single but has a
K K
daughter (aged 3) with his ex-girlfriend. He completed Form 3 and started
L L
to work. He was a delivery worker earning a meagre income. He resides
M M
with his mother, elder sister, younger brother and daughter. In mitigation,
N N
Ms. Chu submitted that D1 wanted to earn some quick money because his
O O
income was unstable and insufficient during the pandemic.
P P
Q D2 Q
R R
18. He is 45 and has 14 conviction records, which included 8
S S
theft-related offences, 1 "Attempted burglary" offence and several other
T T
offences. His counsel Mr. Lai informed me that D2 is separated with no
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
children. He resides with his aged father and younger brother. From 2008
B B
to his arrest, D2 worked at a recycling company earning $18,000 per month.
C C
In mitigation, Mr. Lai submitted that D2 has been remanded in jail custody
D D
since his arrest (over 12 months). He has reflected on his misdeeds and
E E
understands he has done wrong.
F F
G D3 G
H H
19. He is 58 and has 5 conviction records, which included 1
I I
"Theft" offence (dated 1982). His counsel Mr. Cheung informed me that D3
J J
is separated with an adult son. Prior to his arrest, D3 was a casual worker
K K
earning about $8,000 per month. In mitigation, Mr. Cheung submitted that
L D3's only "Theft" conviction took place over 40 years ago. His last L
M conviction was "Gambling in a gambling establishment" (dated 2020) for M
N which he was fined $700. Regarding the driving offences, Mr. Cheung N
submitted that D3's driving licence expired during the pandemic; he had
O O
difficulty renewing it.
P P
Q Q
Sentence
R R
S
20. All 3 defendants should consider themselves lucky that they S
were not charged with "Burglary", an offence which has clear sentencing
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
tariffs (domestic premises or otherwise). In all 3 incidents, the defendants
B B
acted in concert stealing large volume of materials from construction sites in
C C
the early hours of the day. They had brought with them transportation
D D
equipment and a get away vehicle. What they did was serious theft.
E E
F F
21. For Charges 1, 4 and 7, based on the value of the stolen goods
G and the modus operandi of each incident, I consider 2 years' imprisonment, G
H 15 months' imprisonment and 18 months' imprisonment to be the respective H
I appropriate starting points. I may adjust them according to the background I
J
of each defendant. J
K K
D1
L L
M 22. He is a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. For Charges 1 M
N and 7, I adopt 27 months' imprisonment and 21 months' imprisonment as the N
respective starting points. With the timely guilty pleas, the sentences are
O O
reduced to 18 months and 14 months respectively. Apart from this, I see no
P P
other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D1
Q Q
to 18 months' imprisonment and 14 months' imprisonment respectively for
R R
these 2 charges.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
23. For Charge 2, I adopt 6 months' imprisonment as the starting
B B
point. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D1 to 4 months' imprisonment
C C
for this charge.
D D
E E
24. For Charge 9, I do not understand why D1 was charged under
F F
the Public Order Ordinance instead of the Immigration Ordinance 2, which
G only carries a maximum fine of $5,000. He did not deliberately refuse to G
H produce his identity card; he simply did not have it with him. Charging D1 H
I under the Public Order Ordinance seems to be out of proportion. I will fine I
J
him $500 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month. J
K K
25. I consider a global starting point of 33 months' imprisonment
L L
appropriate for Charges 1, 2 and 7. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall
M M
sentence becomes 22 months. To achieve this, I order the sentences for
N N
Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently; 4 months in Charge 7 to run
O O
consecutive to Charges 1 and 2.
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
2
Contrary to section 17C(3) of Cap.115.
U U
V V
由此
- 11 -
A A
D2
B B
C 26. He is a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. For Charge 7, I C
D adopt 21 months' imprisonment as the starting point. With the timely guilty D
E
plea, the sentence is reduced to 14 months. Apart from this, I see no other E
mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D2 to 14
F F
months' imprisonment for this charge.
G G
H H
D3
I I
J
27. I will not treat him as a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. J
For Charges 1, 4 and 7, I adopt 2 years' imprisonment, 15 months'
K K
imprisonment and 18 months' imprisonment as the respective starting points.
L L
With the timely guilty pleas, the sentences are reduced to 16 months, 10
M M
months and 12 months respectively. Apart from this, I see no other
N N
mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D3 to 16
O O
months' imprisonment, 10 months' imprisonment and 12 months'
P P
imprisonment respectively for these 3 charges.
Q Q
R 28. Regarding Charges 3, 5 and 8, for a 1st conviction of this R
S
offence, the maximum penalty is a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 3 S
months. Fine is not an option in this case. I adopt a starting point of 6
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 12 -
A A
weeks' imprisonment for each charge. With the timely guilty plea, the
B B
sentence is reduced to 4 weeks. I sentence D3 to 4 weeks' imprisonment
C C
each for these 3 charges.
D D
E E
29. Although the driving offences arose out of the theft offences, I
F F
consider them separate and distinct from the theft offences for the purpose
G of sentencing. In my view, a global starting point of 39 months' G
H imprisonment is appropriate for Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. With the timely H
I guilty pleas, the overall sentence becomes 26 months. I note that the I
J
evidence against D3 in both the 1st and 2nd incidents came solely from his J
admissions, I would grant him a further discount of 1 month3, reducing the
K K
overall sentence to 25 months. To achieve this, I order the sentences to run
L L
in the following manner :-
M M
N (i) Charges 1 and 3 concurrent; N
O (ii) Charges 4 and 5 concurrent, but 4 months consecutive to O
Charges 1 and 3; and
P P
Q
(iii) Charges 7 and 8 concurrent, but 5 months consecutive to
Q
Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5.
R R
S 3 S
In HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813, Yeung V-P held "When dealing with individual
cases and when considering the totality of the sentence, the court, in exercising its discretion, can
take into account the fact that the frank confession of the defendant provides the only evidence
T which support the charge or charges and therefore make minor adjustments to the total sentence. T
To this we do not object." (para. 32 at p. 821)
U U
V V
由此
- 13 -
A A
30. There is no evidence suggesting that D3's driving was
B B
substandard. He probably was too lazy to renew his driving licence and
C C
tried to blame it on the pandemic. I do not consider it necessary to make a
D D
4
disqualification order against him .
E E
F F
G (G. Lam) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
4
See section 69(1)(a) of Cap.374.
U U
V V
HKSAR v. CHAN YEE MAN AND OTHERS
案件基本資料
案件名稱：HKSAR v Chan Yee-man, Cheung Chi-wah & Fung Chi-keung
法官認為被告採取協同行動、使用運輸設備及接應車輛，屬於 serious theft。量刑時，法官根據物料價值設定不同項目的 starting point，並對 repeated offender（累犯）提高起點。針對 D3，法官引用 HKSAR v Ma Ming 確立的原則，即若被告的 frank confession（坦誠供詞）是支持控罪的唯一證據，法院在考慮 totality of the sentence（總刑期）時可作小幅調整。
引用案例與條文
HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813：用於支持在被告坦誠供詞為唯一證據時，可對總刑期作出小幅下調。
### 案件基本資料
- 案件名稱：HKSAR v Chan Yee-man, Cheung Chi-wah & Fung Chi-keung
- 法院：區域法院 (District Court)
- 法官：H.H. Judge G. Lam
- 判決日期：2024年4月16日
### 案情摘要
三名被告涉及三宗在東衝建築工地偷竊金屬物料的案件。第一宗涉及偷竊不鏽鋼排水蓋及破壞CCTV；第二宗涉及偷竊水線及銅線；第三宗則涉及偷竊銅帶。被告 D1 及 D2 負責潛入工地搬運物料，而 D3 則負責駕駛貨車接應並運走贓物。D3 在駕駛期間並無有效駕駛執照。
### 核心法律爭議
本案主要涉及 sentencing（量刑）問題。核心爭議在於如何根據 stolen goods 的價值、modus operandi（作案手法）以及被告的 criminal record（犯罪紀錄）來設定 starting point。此外，法官需考慮 timely guilty pleas（及時認罪）的減刑幅度，以及 D3 坦承罪行作為唯一證據是否應獲額外減刑。
### 判決理由
法官認為被告採取協同行動、使用運輸設備及接應車輛，屬於 serious theft。量刑時，法官根據物料價值設定不同項目的 starting point，並對 repeated offender（累犯）提高起點。針對 D3，法官引用 HKSAR v Ma Ming 確立的原則，即若被告的 frank confession（坦誠供詞）是支持控罪的唯一證據，法院在考慮 totality of the sentence（總刑期）時可作小幅調整。
### 引用案例與條文
HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813：用於支持在被告坦誠供詞為唯一證據時，可對總刑期作出小幅下調。
### 裁決與命令
三名被告均被判處監禁。D1 總刑期 22 個月及罰款 $500；D2 判處 14 個月監禁；D3 總刑期 25 個月監禁。部分刑期指令 concurrent（同時執行），部分 consecutive（接續執行）。
### 判決啟示
法官指出被告未被控以 Burglary（盜竊罪/闖入盜竊）屬幸事，因為該罪有更嚴厲的 sentencing tariffs。此外，法官對控方將 D1 的身分證明文件缺失控以 Public Order Ordinance 而非 Immigration Ordinance 表示質疑，認為其不相稱 (out of proportion)。
---
### 免責聲明
本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details
- Case Name: HKSAR v Chan Yee-man, Cheung Chi-wah & Fung Chi-keung
- Court: District Court
- Judge: H.H. Judge G. Lam
- Date of Judgment: 16 April 2024
### Factual Background
Three defendants were involved in three separate thefts of construction materials in Tung Chung. The stolen items included stainless steel drain covers, water and copper wires, and copper tape. D1 and D2 typically entered the sites to move the goods, while D3 acted as the driver to transport the stolen property. D3 operated the vehicles without a valid driving licence.
### Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was sentencing. The court had to determine the appropriate starting points based on the value of the stolen goods, the modus operandi, and the defendants' prior convictions. The court also considered the impact of timely guilty pleas and whether D3 deserved a further discount because his confession was the sole evidence for certain charges.
### Ratio Decidendi
The judge characterized the crimes as serious theft due to the concerted action and use of getaway vehicles. Starting points were set based on the value of goods and adjusted upwards for repeat offenders. For D3, the judge applied the principle that a frank confession providing the only evidence for a charge can justify a minor reduction in the total sentence.
### Key Precedents & Statutes
HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813: Cited to justify a minor adjustment to the total sentence when the defendant's confession is the sole evidence supporting the charges.
### Decision & Orders
All defendants received custodial sentences. D1 was sentenced to a global term of 22 months' imprisonment and a $500 fine. D2 was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. D3 was sentenced to a global term of 25 months' imprisonment. Various charges were ordered to run concurrently or consecutively.
### Key Takeaways
The judge noted that the defendants were fortunate not to be charged with Burglary, which carries stricter sentencing tariffs. The judge also criticized the prosecution for charging D1 under the Public Order Ordinance for failure to produce identity proof instead of the Immigration Ordinance, deeming it out of proportion.
---
### Disclaimer
This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.
由此
A A
B DCCC 834/2023 B
[2024] HKDC 603
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 834 OF 2023 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
CHAN Yee-man (D1)
CHEUNG Chi-wah (D2)
I I
FUNG Chi-keung (D3)
J ____________ J
K K
Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam
L Date : 16 April 2024 L
Present : Ms. Christine Leung, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
M Ms. Winnie Chu instructed by M/s KCL & M
Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for
D1.
N N
Mr. Jacky Lai instructed by M/s Fan Wong & Tso,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
O Mr. Patrick Cheung instructed by M/s Kwok, Ng O
& Chan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid,
P for D3. P
Offences : (1), (4), (6) & (7) Theft（盜竊）
Q (2) Criminal damage（刑事損壞） Q
(3), (5) & (8) Driving without a valid driving
R licence（駕駛時無有效駕駛執照） R
(9) Failure to produce proof of identity1（沒有遵
S 從要求出示身分證明以供查閱） S
T T
1
Contrary to section 49(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap.245.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
B B
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
C C
D D
D1 and D3 face a joint charge of "Theft" (Charge 1). D1 to D3
E face a joint charge of "Theft" (Charge 7). D1 alone faces a charge of E
F "Criminal damage" (Charge 2) and a charge of "Failure to produce proof of F
G identity" (Charge 9). D2 alone faces a charge of "Theft" (Charge 6). D3 G
H
alone faces 3 charges of "Driving without a valid driving licence" (Charges H
3, 5 and 8) and a charge of "Theft" (Charge 4).
I I
J J
2. D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 7 and 9. D2 pleaded guilty
K K
to Charge 7. D3 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. I granted the
L L
prosecution's application to leave Charge 6 against D2 in the court file; not
M M
to be proceeded against him without leave of court.
N N
O Summary of Facts O
P P
Background
Q Q
3. D3's Classes 2 (Light Goods Vehicle) and 18 (Medium Goods
R R
Vehicle) driving licence expired on 18 February 2020.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
1st incident
B B
C 4. Sunplus Contractors Limited (VC1) had a construction site at C
D Tung Chung Temporary Street Market, 6 Fu Tung Street, Tung Chung, D
E
Lantau Island (Location 1). E
F F
5. About 8:00 a.m. on 7 February 2023, Mr. Wong (Project
G G
Manager of VC1) found 100 pieces of stainless steel drain covers (Property
H H
1; valued at $500,000) and a CCTV camera (Property 2; valued at $2,000)
I I
missing from Location 1. The Police was alerted.
J J
K K
6. CCTV footage of 6 February 2023 captured D1 (not masked)
L pushing an orange trolley outside Location 1 at 2300 hours. About 2320 L
M hours, he was pushing an orange trolley which contained some rectangular M
N silver heavy items passing outside HKFEW Wong Cho Bau Secondary N
School (Charge 1). Between 2356 and 2358 hours, D1 walked towards
O O
Property 2 and destroyed it with a stick (Charge 2).
P P
Q Q
7. CCTV footage also captured a medium goods vehicle WL145
R R
(V1) leaving Location 1 around 0044 hours on 7 February 2023. In his
S S
video recorded interview ("VRI") conducted on 5 March 2023, D3 admitted
T T
that he drove V1 to Location 1 at the request of a male. He saw that male
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
pushing a trolley which contained drain covers. He believed that the male
B B
and D1 had stolen those drain covers from Location 1. Yet, D3 drove that
C C
male and D1 together with Property 1 from Location 1 to Yuen Long and
D D
received $2,000 as his reward (Charges 1 and 3).
E E
F F
2nd incident
G G
8. Wang Yu Engineering Company Limited (VC2) had a storage
H H
site at Lot 2597 in DD4, Shek Lau Po, Tung Chung Road, Tung Chung,
I I
Lantau Island (Location 2).
J J
K K
9. About 7:30 a.m. on 13 February 2023, Mr. Yu (Foreman of
L VC2) found one roll of 500m water wire (Property 3; valued at $8,000) and L
M one roll of 400m copper wire (Property 4; valued at $60,000) missing from M
N Location 2. The Police was alerted. N
O O
10. In his VRI conducted on 5 March 2023, D3 admitted that a
P P
male had asked him to collect some goods from Tung Chung for $2,000. He
Q Q
thus drove a light goods vehicle WL1970 (V2) to Location 2. D3 assisted
R R
two males by loading Properties 3 and 4 onto V2. He then drove V2 from
S S
Location 2 to an unknown location and received $2,000. When shown the
T T
relevant CCTV footage, D3 identified himself and V2. D3 admitted that he
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
believed Properties 3 and 4 belonged to a company instead of the two males
B B
(Charges 4 and 5).
C C
D D
3rd incident
E E
11. BYME Engineering (HK) Limited (VC3) had a construction
F F
site for the expansion project of North Lantau Hospital at Yu Tung Road,
G G
Tung Chung, Lantau Island (Location 3). On 3 March 2023, 41 rolls of
H H
copper tape (Property 5; valued at $178,350) were stored at Location 3.
I I
J J
12. In the early hours on 4 March 2023, PC 15043 (PW3) saw D1
K K
to D3 stealing Property 5 from Location 3. In particular, about 0245 hours,
L D2 threw a black long bag into the grass area outside Location 3 near L
M Lamppost AC1504A ("the Entering Point"). About 0255 hours, D2 placed a M
N ladder on the grass area outside the Entering Point. About 0500 hours, D1 N
and D2 climbed over the external wall at the Entering Point using the ladder
O O
and entered Location 3. About 0520 hours, D1 and D2 threw Property 5
P P
from the Entering Point out of Location 3. About 0537 hours, D3 brought
Q Q
two rubbish bins to the pavement near the Entering Point. D1 and D2 put
R R
Property 5 into the two rubbish bins. About 0600 hours, D3 used a pallet
S S
truck and loaded a rubbish bin which contained some of Property 5 onto V1
T T
and drove V1 away. About 0614 hours, D2 pushed a pallet truck to the
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
Entering Point and used it to transport the other rubbish bin which contained
B B
the remaining Property 5. This is Charges 7 and 8.
C C
D D
13. About 0616 hours, police officers intercepted D1 to D3 for
E E
enquiry. DPC 13150 (PW4) asked D1 for identity proof. D1 claimed that he
F F
did not carry any identity proof with him (Charge 9).
G G
H 14. PW4 arrested D1 at 0635 hours on 4 March 2023. In his VRI H
I conducted on 4 March 2023, D1 claimed that he saw 2 rubbish bins I
J
containing some re-sellable metal and thought they were rubbish. He J
therefore agreed with D2 to take them away and re-sell them for money.
K K
L L
15. DPC 7444 arrested D2 at 0625 hours on 4 March 2023. In his
M M
VRIs conducted on 4 and 5 March 2023, D2 claimed that he thought
N N
Property 5 was rubbish and planned to throw it away. He and D1 then put
O O
Property 5 into the rubbish bins. D2 intended to discard the rubbish bin
P P
which contained some of Property 5 at the hillside.
Q Q
R 16. DPC 14597 arrested D3 at 0630 hours on 4 March 2023. R
S
Under caution, he claimed that D2 called him around 4:00 a.m. asking him S
to collect D1's and D2's stolen goods at Tung Chung. In his VRI conducted
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
on 4 March 2023, D3 stated that D2 called him that morning asking him to
B B
collect their stolen properties for $2,000. D3 also admitted having driven
C C
V1 with two rubbish bins and a pallet truck to Location 3. D3 assisted D1
D D
and D2 by loading a rubbish bin containing some of Property 5 onto V1.
E E
F F
Mitigation
G G
D1
H H
I 17. He is 32 and has 6 conviction records, which included 1 I
J
"Conspiracy to rob" offence, 4 "Theft" offences and a number of other J
offences. His counsel Ms. Chu informed me that D1 is single but has a
K K
daughter (aged 3) with his ex-girlfriend. He completed Form 3 and started
L L
to work. He was a delivery worker earning a meagre income. He resides
M M
with his mother, elder sister, younger brother and daughter. In mitigation,
N N
Ms. Chu submitted that D1 wanted to earn some quick money because his
O O
income was unstable and insufficient during the pandemic.
P P
Q D2 Q
R R
18. He is 45 and has 14 conviction records, which included 8
S S
theft-related offences, 1 "Attempted burglary" offence and several other
T T
offences. His counsel Mr. Lai informed me that D2 is separated with no
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
children. He resides with his aged father and younger brother. From 2008
B B
to his arrest, D2 worked at a recycling company earning $18,000 per month.
C C
In mitigation, Mr. Lai submitted that D2 has been remanded in jail custody
D D
since his arrest (over 12 months). He has reflected on his misdeeds and
E E
understands he has done wrong.
F F
G D3 G
H H
19. He is 58 and has 5 conviction records, which included 1
I I
"Theft" offence (dated 1982). His counsel Mr. Cheung informed me that D3
J J
is separated with an adult son. Prior to his arrest, D3 was a casual worker
K K
earning about $8,000 per month. In mitigation, Mr. Cheung submitted that
L D3's only "Theft" conviction took place over 40 years ago. His last L
M conviction was "Gambling in a gambling establishment" (dated 2020) for M
N which he was fined $700. Regarding the driving offences, Mr. Cheung N
submitted that D3's driving licence expired during the pandemic; he had
O O
difficulty renewing it.
P P
Q Q
Sentence
R R
S
20. All 3 defendants should consider themselves lucky that they S
were not charged with "Burglary", an offence which has clear sentencing
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
tariffs (domestic premises or otherwise). In all 3 incidents, the defendants
B B
acted in concert stealing large volume of materials from construction sites in
C C
the early hours of the day. They had brought with them transportation
D D
equipment and a get away vehicle. What they did was serious theft.
E E
F F
21. For Charges 1, 4 and 7, based on the value of the stolen goods
G and the modus operandi of each incident, I consider 2 years' imprisonment, G
H 15 months' imprisonment and 18 months' imprisonment to be the respective H
I appropriate starting points. I may adjust them according to the background I
J
of each defendant. J
K K
D1
L L
M 22. He is a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. For Charges 1 M
N and 7, I adopt 27 months' imprisonment and 21 months' imprisonment as the N
respective starting points. With the timely guilty pleas, the sentences are
O O
reduced to 18 months and 14 months respectively. Apart from this, I see no
P P
other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D1
Q Q
to 18 months' imprisonment and 14 months' imprisonment respectively for
R R
these 2 charges.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
23. For Charge 2, I adopt 6 months' imprisonment as the starting
B B
point. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D1 to 4 months' imprisonment
C C
for this charge.
D D
E E
24. For Charge 9, I do not understand why D1 was charged under
F F
the Public Order Ordinance instead of the Immigration Ordinance 2, which
G only carries a maximum fine of $5,000. He did not deliberately refuse to G
H produce his identity card; he simply did not have it with him. Charging D1 H
I under the Public Order Ordinance seems to be out of proportion. I will fine I
J
him $500 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month. J
K K
25. I consider a global starting point of 33 months' imprisonment
L L
appropriate for Charges 1, 2 and 7. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall
M M
sentence becomes 22 months. To achieve this, I order the sentences for
N N
Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently; 4 months in Charge 7 to run
O O
consecutive to Charges 1 and 2.
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
2
Contrary to section 17C(3) of Cap.115.
U U
V V
由此
- 11 -
A A
D2
B B
C 26. He is a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. For Charge 7, I C
D adopt 21 months' imprisonment as the starting point. With the timely guilty D
E
plea, the sentence is reduced to 14 months. Apart from this, I see no other E
mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D2 to 14
F F
months' imprisonment for this charge.
G G
H H
D3
I I
J
27. I will not treat him as a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. J
For Charges 1, 4 and 7, I adopt 2 years' imprisonment, 15 months'
K K
imprisonment and 18 months' imprisonment as the respective starting points.
L L
With the timely guilty pleas, the sentences are reduced to 16 months, 10
M M
months and 12 months respectively. Apart from this, I see no other
N N
mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence D3 to 16
O O
months' imprisonment, 10 months' imprisonment and 12 months'
P P
imprisonment respectively for these 3 charges.
Q Q
R 28. Regarding Charges 3, 5 and 8, for a 1st conviction of this R
S
offence, the maximum penalty is a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for 3 S
months. Fine is not an option in this case. I adopt a starting point of 6
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 12 -
A A
weeks' imprisonment for each charge. With the timely guilty plea, the
B B
sentence is reduced to 4 weeks. I sentence D3 to 4 weeks' imprisonment
C C
each for these 3 charges.
D D
E E
29. Although the driving offences arose out of the theft offences, I
F F
consider them separate and distinct from the theft offences for the purpose
G of sentencing. In my view, a global starting point of 39 months' G
H imprisonment is appropriate for Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. With the timely H
I guilty pleas, the overall sentence becomes 26 months. I note that the I
J
evidence against D3 in both the 1st and 2nd incidents came solely from his J
admissions, I would grant him a further discount of 1 month3, reducing the
K K
overall sentence to 25 months. To achieve this, I order the sentences to run
L L
in the following manner :-
M M
N (i) Charges 1 and 3 concurrent; N
O (ii) Charges 4 and 5 concurrent, but 4 months consecutive to O
Charges 1 and 3; and
P P
Q
(iii) Charges 7 and 8 concurrent, but 5 months consecutive to
Q
Charges 1, 3, 4 and 5.
R R
S 3 S
In HKSAR v Ma Ming [2013] 1 HKLRD 813, Yeung V-P held "When dealing with individual
cases and when considering the totality of the sentence, the court, in exercising its discretion, can
take into account the fact that the frank confession of the defendant provides the only evidence
T which support the charge or charges and therefore make minor adjustments to the total sentence. T
To this we do not object." (para. 32 at p. 821)
U U
V V
由此
- 13 -
A A
30. There is no evidence suggesting that D3's driving was
B B
substandard. He probably was too lazy to renew his driving licence and
C C
tried to blame it on the pandemic. I do not consider it necessary to make a
D D
4
disqualification order against him .
E E
F F
G (G. Lam) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
4
See section 69(1)(a) of Cap.374.
U U
V V