區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok18/5/2026[2026] HKDC 909
DCCC1295/2025
DCCC 1295/2025 [2026] HKDC 909 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1295 OF 2025 ________________________ HKSAR v WONG Chun-ho ________________________ Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok Date: 19 May 2026 Present: Mr Michael Leung Hoi Ming, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR Mr Terry Kan Wing Fai, instructed by CLM LAWYERS, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant Offence(s): [1] Theft (盜竊罪) [2] Driving while disqualified (於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛) [3] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (沒有第三者保險而使用汽車) ________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1. The defendant pleads guilty to three charges. Charge 1 is for the offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Charge 2 is for the offence of driving while disqualified, contrary to section 44(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. Charge 3 is for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272. The defendant also admits the relevant facts. Accordingly, he is convicted of all these three charges. Admitted Facts 2. Mr Ngan Tak-wai (“Mr Ngan”) was at all material times the owner of a motorcycle bearing registration mark WM5196 (“WM5196”) which he bought in late 2023 at the price of HK$28,000. He never authorized anyone to use WM5196 and kept the keys of WM5196 to himself only. 3. Around 2:30 am on 2 May 2025, Mr Ngan parked WM5196 at the roadside outside Heng Fai House, Tin Heng Estate, Tin Shui Wai which was near his home. He had however forgotten to remove the ignition key from WM5196 before he left and returned home. 4. Around 1 pm on the same day, Mr Ngan realized that he had left the ignition key with WM5196. He immediately went downstairs his home to where he parked the motorcycle. WM5196 was still there. Mr Ngan then headed back his home for his personal belongings which he forgot to bring along when he left home in a hurry. However, he again forgot to remove the ignition key from WM5196. 5. Upon his return about 8 minutes later, Mr Ngan saw the defendant sitting on WM5196. Mr Ngan did not know the defendant, nor had Mr Ngan met him before. At that time, WM5196 was about 10 metres away from where Mr Ngan had parked it. Since Mr Ngan believed that the defendant was stealing WM5196, he started filming the defendant with his phone immediately and confronted him. 6. The video taken by Mr Ngan showed that the defendant was wearing a helmet and a glove on his right hand. He was sitting on WM5196 with its engine running. A beige helmet belonging to Mr Ngan was lying on the ground. Mr Ngan asked the defendant what he was doing. The defendant replied that there was key on the motorcycle and that he was driving it away. Mr Ngan told the defendant that it was his motorcycle and that he would call the police. The defendant repeated that the motorcycle was with key and claimed that the motorcycle belonged to his friend. He also denied stealing the motorcycle and stated that he was at most taking it away and that he would return it to Mr Ngan. 7. The defendant then offered to park WM5196 back to its original position and went on to restart its engine. However, instead of doing what he had said, he accelerated and drove WM5196 towards the main road. Mr Ngan immediately chased after the defendant and stopped him from driving away. 8. After Mr Ngan had stopped the defendant from driving WM5196 further, he stopped filming. The defendant attempted to flee from the scene, but Mr Ngan followed him. Mr Ngan eventually intercepted the defendant outside the “Hong Kong Christian Service” at Heng Chui House. A report was made to the police. 9. About 2 pm on the same day, i.e. 2 May 2025, PC27902 arrested the defendant. 10. Mr. Ngan subsequently inspected WM5196. He found that WM5196 was damaged in the crash when he tried to regain control of it from the defendant. There were a crack and scratch marks near its left blinker, as well as a crack on its left blinker cover, and its left handlebar was displaced, which affected the steering of WM5196. The repairing costs were HK$10,300. 11. According to the record with the Transport Department, the defendant has never obtained any full driver’s licence upon the expiry of his provisional driver’s licence on 29 December 2003. 12. The defendant was disqualified from driving between 17 October 2024 and 16 October 2026 in Case No. DCCC86/2024. 13. At the time when the defendant was driving WM5196, he was using a motor vehicle on a road without third party insurance. Criminal record of the defendant 14. The defendant was sentenced by the Courts on 20 previous occasions involving a total of 35 charges, including 11 charges of theft, 2 charges of attempted theft, and two charges of conspiracy to steal (i.e. 15 charges in total which were the same as Charge 1 or similar in nature), as well as 3 charges of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (which were the same as Charge 3). He has not been convicted of the same offence (driving while disqualified) as Charge 2 before. 15. It is worth noting that the defendant has two previous convictions of taking conveyance without authority, and 3 previous convictions for driving without a valid driving licence. 16. I shall say more later about the offences committed by the defendant that formed the subject matter of his two District Court cases, i.e. DCCC245/2021 and DCCC86/2024, and their sentences which were imposed upon him on 7 July 2021 and 17 October 2024 respectively 17. The defendant’s remaining convictions were for 4 charges of gambling not in a gambling establishment, and one charge each for operating a gambling establishment, possession of a false instrument, impersonating a police officer, common assault, possession of offensive weapon, possession of dangerous drugs, possession of instrument for unlawful purpose, and criminal damage. 18. The defendant was last sentenced on 15 July 2025 for the offence of criminal damage to 3 weeks’ imprisonment (WKCC 481/2025). Since he had been remanded in custody before sentence, he completed serving this sentence on the same day of his sentence, though he remains in custody due to the present case. Personal and family background 19. The defendant is now 44 years old and will turn 45 in about a month’s time. He was born on 10 June 1981 in Hong Kong. He received education up to Form 3. He had previously worked as a transportation worker. Since his release from prison in DCCC86/2024 in or about November 2024, he was unemployed and supported by his elder brother. 20. As to his family members, the defendant has never seen his mother in his life and knows nothing about her. His father passed away in 2021. He has an elder brother who is now 47 years old. 21. The defendant got married when he was 32 years old. He later divorced his wife and had a relationship with his ex-girlfriend who gave birth to his twin daughters who are now 13 years old. The two daughters are now under the care of the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) and living in an institution provided by SWD. Mitigation 22. Mr Terry Kan, the learned counsel for the defendant, produces a letter from the defendant in which the defendant expresses his remorse for committing these offences out of a moment of greed. He regrets that his remand has caused him to lose the time he could otherwise have spent with his twin daughters. He says that he wishes to return to the society soon to take care of them. He says that whilst on remand, he applies for work proactively to acquire skills so that it may be easier for him to find a job after release. He says that he now understands that family is the most important part of his life. He asks for leniency. 23. Mr Kan points out that the main mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea. Referring to cases including HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming[1], HKSAR v Chan Chun-man[2] and HKSAR v Leung King-cheong[3], Mr Kan submits that the proper starting point of the sentence for the theft offence (Charge 1) is two years’ imprisonment. He refers to HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin (鍾浩賢)[4] and submits that 6 month’s imprisonment is the proper starting point for each of Charges 2 and 3. He submits that the defendant should be given one-third discount for his timely guilty plea, and that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 should run concurrently, and that in light of the totality principle, a total term of 18 months’ imprisonment will be the proper sentence. Reasons for sentence 24. Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, provides that any person convicted of theft is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 25. In the present case, the defendant stole a motorcycle worth HK28,000 when it was purchased by its owner Mr Ngan in late 2023. He tried to drive away the motorcycle but was stopped by Mr Ngan, and he was arrested by the police. The motorcycle was recovered by Mr Ngan though it was damaged in the crash when Mr Ngan was trying to regain control of it from the defendant. The repairing costs were HK$10,300. 26. In the case of Cheng Chun Ming cited by Mr Kan, the Court of Appeal at paragraph 14 of the judgment made it clear that cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars were very serious offences and inevitably called for immediate custodial sentences of considerable length. It upheld the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment adopted by the trial judge for the theft of a private car worth HK$158,000 by the defendant who delivered the stolen car to a used car dealer to display it for sale on his behalf. 27. In the case of Chan Chung Man, also cited by Mr Kan, the learned deputy District Judge KH Cheang adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for theft of a motor car in light of the relatively low value of the stolen car that had been used for about 20 years by the car owner. The learned judge referred to paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Yu Chi Chiu (余志釗)[5] in which the Court of Appeal explained why theft of a vehicle was regarded as a serious offence: “However, for the sake of completeness, I will also point out that the theft of a vehicle is a serious crime for the following reasons: (1) Regardless of the make/model of a vehicle, it is a valuable property worth a lot of money. (2) A vehicle is also a private space that occasionally or even permanently stores all sorts of items that bear personal data and/or tend to expose confidential information (e.g. phones, name cards, different types of documents/letters, and all types of memory cards or access cards). (3) A vehicle is often parked in the public place, making it prone to be a target of theft. (4) To the owner of a private vehicle, the loss of his vehicle will cause him great inconvenience as he will lose his means of transportation. And when a vehicle is used for a commercial or work purpose, the loss of it means that the owner will lose his paraphernalia for making money, which in turn will cause additional economic loss or even affect his livelihood.” 28. The Court of Appeal in Yu Chi Chiu further stated in paragraph 11 of the judgment that: “Regardless of the purpose of thieves and whether the number of vehicle thefts is rising sharply, the severity of vehicle thefts is reflected in the four points mentioned above. If other factors are involved (e.g. the vehicle theft is carefully planned, the stolen vehicle is resold or used to commit other crimes), they will be considered as aggravating factors.” 29. Yu Chi Chiu involved the theft of a light goods vehicle, and the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The observations made by the Court of Appeal as quoted above have been consistently followed by the courts in Hong Kong, and were reiterated by the Court of Appeal recently in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Ka On (張家銨)[6]. 30. In Cheung Ka On, the appellant was convicted of a number of charges including theft of a motorcycle and attempted theft of another motorcycle. In paragraph 31 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal quoted paragraph 10 of the judgment of Yu Chi Chiu and went on to make it clear that the same observations applied to not just theft of a motor car but also theft of a motorcycle. The Court of Appeal stated that: “It will be noted that the Court drew no distinction between the make of vehicle stolen and we do not see why a motorcycle should be treated any less seriously than a motor car. Indeed arguably, a motorcycle is easier to conceal and disguise and makes it harder to recover.” (italics for emphasis) 31. Not only stating that theft of a motorcycle should not be treated less seriously than theft of a motor car, the Court of Appeal went on to state, in paragraph 32 of its judgment, that: “The usual starting point for an offence in relation to the theft of a motor vehicle, or handling a stolen motor vehicle is 3 years’ imprisonment, although it could go above or below that figure depending on the circumstances of the case”. 32. In Cheung Ka On, the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for the theft charge, and imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months for the attempted theft charge. The Court of Appeal ruled that the appellant could not reasonably complain against each of these starting points, neither of which exceeded 3 years’ imprisonment. 33. In my view, the defendant knew clearly what sentence might be imposed on him when he stole WM5196 on 2 May 2025 because he had been sentenced for stealing motorcycles before. According to his criminal record, he has 15 previous convictions for the offences of theft, attempted theft and conspiracy to steal. While his criminal record does not reveal what he had stolen, or what he had attempted or intended to steal on all these occasions, it is clear from the Reasons for Sentence in Case Nos. DCCC245/2021 and DCCC86/2024 that he had on various occasions stolen motorcycles. 34. In DCCC245/2021, the defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of 7 charges, including 4 charges of theft, one charge of driving without a valid driving licence, one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and one charge of possession of instruments fit for unlawful purposes. 35. The 4 theft offences related to theft of 4 motorcycles by the defendant one after the other on 4 different days between 6 September 2020 and 5 October 2020. The value of the motorcycles was HK$38,000, HK$18,000, HK$33,800 and HK$20,000 respectively. At the time of his arrest on 19 October 2020, he was found in possession of skeleton keys fit and intended for stealing motorcycles. 36. The learned sentencing judge adopted starting points of 2 years’ imprisonment for the first two thefts, but imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months for the third theft, and imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for the 4th theft because the defendant repeated the same offence. A starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment was adopted for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was adopted for possession of instrument fit for unlawful purposes. 37. For all 7 charges, the defendant was sentenced on 7 July 2021 to a total term of 30 months’ imprisonment after each starting point was discounted by one-third because of the defendant’s guilty plea, and in accordance with the principle of totality. 38. Since the defendant was arrested on 19 October 2020 for this case, and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment only, coupled with the one-third discount of the sentence usually given to a prisoner because of his good conduct in prison, he was presumably released from prison in or about June 2022, although Mr Kan says that the defendant does not remember when he was released. 39. In Case No. DCCC86/2024, the defendant was convicted upon his plea of 4 charges, including one charge of theft, one charge of taking conveyance without authority, one charge of driving without a valid driving licence, and one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 40. The facts were that the defendant stole a motorcycle worth HK$18,000 sometime between the night of 20 March 2023 and the morning of 21 March 2023. At night of the same day, a friend of the motorcycle owner noticed that a man parked the stolen motorcycle at a certain location and left behind his helmet on the pedals of the motorcycle. He notified the motorcycle owner to get back his lost motorcycle. The defendant’s DNA was found on the helmet left behind by the man. 41. The defendant committed the taking conveyance without authority charge on 8 May 2023 when he drove away another motorcycle but he was arrested by the police. He was found to be driving without a valid driving licence and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 42. In other words, the defendant committed these offences just 9 to 11 months after he was discharged from prison having served the sentences in DCCC245/2021. 43. The learned sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for the theft charge, and enhanced it by 3 months in light of the defendant’s criminal record. He did not enhance the sentence for the taking conveyance without authority charge on the ground that the defendant had only one prior similar conviction. 44. For the offences of driving without a valid driving licence, and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, the learned judge adopted a starting point of 2 months’ imprisonment and 6 months’ imprisonment respectively, which he enhanced due to the defendant’s criminal record by one month and 2 months respectively. In other words, the notional starting points after trial were 3 months’ imprisonment and 8 months’ imprisonment respectively for these two charges. 45. For all 4 charges, the defendant was sentenced to a total term of 21 months’ imprisonment on 17 October 2024 after the learned judge discounted the individual sentences by one-third due to the defendant’s guilty plea and in light of the principle of totality. 46. Presumably, the defendant was required to serve only 31 days after his sentence on 17 October 2024 in accordance with Rule 69(1) of the Prison Rules (Cap 234) because the time he had spent in custody since his arrest on 8 May 2023 until the date of sentence had already exceeded the term he had to serve if he was given one-third discount due to good conduct in prison. Mr Kan confirms that the defendant was released in November 2024. 47. Due to the gravity of the offence and the need of deterrence as stated by the Court of Appeal in the authorities referred to above, there is no doubt whatsoever that the only appropriate sentencing option in this case is imprisonment. The defendant of course cannot complain when he is snapped with an immediate custodial sentence because he knows full well that this will be the outcome from his personal court experiences. 48. In respect of Charge 1, the theft was made possible from the fact that Mr Ngan had left behind the ignition key in WM5196 after he had parked the motorcycle and left, and the defendant might be tempted by the occasion to steal. From this perspective, it might well be said that the offence was opportunistic. However, when Mr Ngan appeared and tried to stop the defendant from driving away, the fact that the defendant claimed that the motorcycle belonged to his friend and still tried to drive it away showed that he had by then formed a definite intention to steal the motorcycle. When the confrontation between him and Mr Ngan was going on, the fact that he told Mr Ngan on the one hand that he would park the motorcycle back to its original parking location, but on the other hand he accelerated and drove WM5196 towards the main road showed that he had the full dishonest intent to deprive Mr Ngan permanently of the motorcycle even though the vehicle owner was already there to take back his property. I find that the defendant’s act of theft was no longer opportunistic at that point of time, which means that the fact that Mr Ngan had left the ignition key in WM5194 did not lower the criminalities of the offence and the defendant must bear full responsibility. 49. I take into account the facts pertaining to Charge 1, in particular the defendant’s behaviour at the material times, the value of the motorcycle being HK$28,000, and the damage done to the motorcycle that required Mr Ngan to spend HK$10,300 to repair it even though the motorcycle was recovered. I rule that the appropriate starting point of the sentence for Charge 1 is 24 months’ imprisonment. 50. I then consider whether there are aggravating factors that require an upward adjustment of the sentence. I note the following. 51. First, the defendant has multiple convictions relating to the offence of theft, and that prior to the commission of Charge 1, he had already stolen 4 motorcycles in Case No. DCCC245/2021, and stolen one motorcycle and took another motorcycle without authority of the owner in DCCC86/2024. In other words, he had committed offences in respect of at least 6 motorcycles. He had also been found once in possession of skeleton keys for stealing motorcycles. He is clearly a persistent offender. Second, he committed the offence in Charge 1 on 2 May 2025, which means that just 6 months or thereabout after his release from prison in November 2024 after serving his sentence in DCCC86/2024, he committed the same offence again. 52. I note that the Court of Appeal had stated in Yu Chi Chiu that as far as enhancing sentencing starting point was concerned, the factor of reoffending shortly after release was no different from that of having multiple similar convictions in the past, and that the former was at most proof of the latter: see paragraph 15 of the judgment. In other words, there should be only one enhancement rather than double enhancement. 53. I note that in DCCC86/2024, the learned sentencing judge had in fact increased the sentence for the theft offence from its starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment by 3 months to 27 months’ imprisonment due to the defendant’s criminal record. In fact, in DCCC245/2021, the learned sentencing judge had adopted a starting point for the third and fourth theft which were higher than the first two thefts, i.e. the learned judge adopted starting points of imprisonment for 27 months and 30 months respectively for the third and fourth theft instead of the 2 years’ imprisonment starting points for the first two thefts. The Reasons for Sentence of these two cases must have been read out to the defendant. It follows that he knew clearly at the time when he committed Charge 1 that he would receive a sentence higher than the normal sentence due to his criminal past, and that his sentence could be as high as 30 months’ imprisonment if not longer. 54. Furthermore, it is clear that even though that the defendant was given a sentence enhanced by 3 months for the theft offence in DCCC86/2024, it did not have the intended deterrent effect on him since he committed the same offence shortly after release from prison. It means that it is necessary to impose a higher enhanced sentence. 55. For these reasons, I adjust the starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment upward by 6 months. I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 1 is 30 months’ imprisonment. 56. It is also important to point out at this stage that there is another aggravating feature. The defendant was convicted of the offence of criminal damage in Case No. WKCC481/2025. According to the relevant court papers, the defendant committed this offence on 28 January 2025 when he splashed black paint on the door of the residence of the victim for the purpose of debt collection. He was arrested on the same day of the offence. He was taken to Court on 7 February 2025 with bail granted to him. He appeared in Court again on 1 April 2025 when the case was further adjourned to 30 April 2025 for him to seek assistance from the Duty Lawyer Service with bail extended on the same terms. However, he did not appear in Court on 30 April 2025 and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. While he was jumping court bail, he committed Charge 1 on 2 May 2025. 57. As revealed in my sentencing process, I have not taken this aggravating feature into account in enhancing the individual sentence for any of the 3 charges in the present case, but I shall take this matter into account when I consider the totality of the sentences. 58. For the offence of driving while disqualified (Charge 2), according to section 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, the maximum sentence is a fine at level 3 (i.e. HK$10,000) and imprisonment for 12 months. In addition, according to section 44(2)(a), the offender shall be disqualified, in the case of a first conviction, for a period of not less than 12 months unless the Court considers that there are special reasons for ordering a shorter disqualification, or not to disqualify at all. Section 44(3) directs that this period of disqualification shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road Traffic Ordinance. 59. Mr Kan stresses that the defendant has no prior conviction for this offence. He cites the case of Chung Ho Yin and submits that a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment will be appropriate. Mr Kan refers to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment. 60. In Chung Ho Yin, the appellant was involved in two sets of offences committed on 7 January 2019 and 28 January 2019. In each set of the offences, he drove a motor vehicle while disqualified and hence without third party insurance. He was also involved in the offence of dangerous driving in the first set of offences, and involved in trafficking in dangerous drugs in the second set of offences. He had one previous conviction for driving while disqualified and two previous convictions for using a motor vehicle without third party insurance: see paragraph 17 of the judgment. The Court of Appeal held that the proper starting point for the first set of driving while disqualified and without third party insurance offences to be 6 months’ imprisonment each: see paragraph 42 of the judgment, and for the second set of such offences, the proper starting point was 9 months’ imprisonment each, taking into account the appellant’s previous convictions and offending for the same offence: see paragraph 43 of the judgment. 61. In the present case, the defendant has no prior conviction for the offence of driving whilst disqualified. Despite the submissions of Mr Kan, I adopt a lower starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment. Since the defendant has no similar conviction before, the sentence will not be enhanced on account of his record. He committed this offence when he jumped court bail. The individual sentence will not be adjusted upward on this ground, but it will be taken into account when the question of totality is considered. In other words, I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 2 is 3 months’ imprisonment. 62. Mr Kan makes no submissions on the question of disqualification. There is clearly no special reason for ordering a shorter disqualification or not ordering disqualification at all. I shall order that the defendant is to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 18 months. 63. For the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (Charge 3), according to section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272, the maximum sentence is a fine at level 3 (i.e. HK$10,000) and imprisonment for 12 months, and disqualified from driving for not less than 12 months and not more than 3 years from the date of conviction unless special reason exists, and section 4(2)(b) deemed a disqualification under section 4(2)(a) of Cap. 272 to be a disqualification by virtue of a conviction under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. 64. Mr Kan also relies upon Chung Ho Yin and submits that the appropriate starting point is 6 months’ imprisonment. 65. The present case is the defendant’s fourth conviction for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 66. In DCCC86/2024 when the defendant was sentenced for this offence, the learned judge adopted a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, and enhanced it by 2 months because the defendant had two similar previous convictions. The enhancement clearly did not have the desired deterrent effect on the defendant. 67. I adopt 6 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 3 and enhance it by 3 months to 9 months’ imprisonment, which is the same as the sentence found to be appropriate by the Court of Appeal in Chung Ho Yin, and a recognition of the need to enhance the deterrent effect of the present sentence when the previous sentence on the defendant in DCCC86/2024 failed to achieve its purpose. Hence, I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 3 is 9 months’ imprisonment. 68. Mr Kan makes no submissions on the question of disqualification. There is clearly no special reason for ordering a shorter disqualification or not ordering disqualification at all. I shall order that the defendant is to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 24 months. 69. As to mitigating factors, the defendant enters a timely guilty plea. He is of course entitled to be given the usual one-third discount. 70. The defendant claims that he is remorseful, and asks for a chance for early release so that he may take care of his twin daughters now aged 13. He is basically repeating what he had put forward in mitigation when he was sentenced in DCCC86/2024. But he reoffended shortly after his discharge from prison. For this reason, it is difficult not to doubt the sincerity of the defendant. In any event, even if he is telling the truth now, such matters do not have the effect of reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence due to the gravity of the offences and the need to deter the defendant from committing the same or similar offences again, and to deter others from acting in the same way as the defendant. 71. For these reasons, in so far as the various sentences of imprisonment are concerned, I sentence the defendant as follows: Charge 1 20 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2 2 months’ imprisonment; and Charge 3 6 months’ imprisonment. 72. I shall now consider whether these sentences should run wholly or partially concurrently or consecutively. The principle of totality requires that the effective total term of the sentences should not be unduly lengthy and jeopardize the defendant’s chances of rehabilitation, but it should on the other hand properly reflect the overall criminalities of all the offences. 73. Mr Kan asks for the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently. He further submits that it is only necessary to order two months of these concurrent terms to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. Mr Kan’s submission is of course made on the basis that the appropriate sentence for Charge 1 should be 16 months’ imprisonment only, and those for Charges 2 and 3 should be concurrent terms of 4 months’ imprisonment. 74. In my view, in so far as the offences in Charges 2 and 3 are concerned, while both involved the defendant driving the motorcycle WM5196, their criminalities do not overlap one another completely. The offence of driving while disqualified involved the defendant’s contempt of the Court, while the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance involved the defendant putting ordinary road users and drivers at risk of not being covered by insurance when the defendant drove. Hence, it is arguable that the sentences for these two charges should run at least partially consecutively, and not to run wholly concurrently. 75. In any event, as mentioned before, the defendant committed all these offences when he jumped court bail for another offence. This aggravating feature has not been factored in the determination of the individual sentence of each charge. When a defendant commits another offence while on bail, the court is entitled to impose a heavier sentence on him so as to punish him for abusing the liberty given to him by the Court and for his contempt towards the Court. The same principle must also apply to those who jump bail. As said before, I shall take this matter into account when considering the overall sentence to be imposed on the defendant. 76. If the defendant had committed these offences without jumping court bail in WKCC481/2025, I would have ordered that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently, and 3 months of these two concurrent terms to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 23 months’ imprisonment, meaning that I would have adopted a starting point of 34½ months’ imprisonment for all charges. I take the view that the criminalities of the driving while disqualified and without third party insurance offences did not overlap with the criminalities of the theft offence, and it is the need to avoid an unduly lengthy overall sentence that makes this Court order a partially consecutive sentence. 77. However, the defendant had committed these offences while he was jumping court bail, the overall sentence must reflect this additional criminality. For this reason, I shall adopt a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment as the effective total terms of imprisonment for all the charges. Upon the defendant’s guilty plea, the overall sentence to be imposed on the defendant will be 24 months’ imprisonment. 78. To achieve this result, I shall order that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 are to run concurrently, and 4 months of these concurrent terms are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. 79. In so far as disqualification from driving is concerned, I have already said that the defendant will be disqualified from driving for 18 months in respect of Charge 2, and disqualified from driving for 24 months in respect of Charge 3. 80. In DCCC86/2024, the defendant is disqualified from driving for two years from the date of sentence, i.e. 17 October 2024 under section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272, and this disqualification is deemed by section 4(2)(b) to be a disqualification by virtue of a conviction under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. Since this disqualification order will only expire on 16 October 2026, and by virtue of section 44(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance which directs that any period of disqualification ordered under section 44(2) shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the 18 months’ disqualification order imposed on the defendant in respect of Charge 2 will start to run only on 17 October 2026 after the previous disqualification order has expired. In other words, the defendant will be disqualified from driving until 16 April 2027 by virtue of the sentence imposed on him in Charge 2. 81. On the other hand, for the order disqualifying the defendant from driving for 24 months in Charge 3, that order is to start running from the date of sentence, i.e. today, and that this order will expire only after 18 May 2028. 82. To make the matter simple for the defendant, he is now specifically informed that he is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class up till the end of 18 May 2028. He is warned that if he drives any motor vehicle, or applies for a driving licence to drive any motor vehicle before the end of 18 May 2028, he will be committing the offence of driving while disqualified, and he will most likely be committing the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance as well. 83. Just to recap, the sentences imposed on the defendant are as follows: Charge 1 20 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2 2 months’ imprisonment, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 18 months, to run consecutively to the disqualification order imposed in DCCC86/2024, i.e. to run from 17 October 2026 onwards for 18 months; and Charge 3 6 months’ imprisonment, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 24 months with effect from today. 84. I further order that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 are to run concurrently, but 4 months of these two concurrent sentences are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 24 months’ imprisonment. (W.K. Kwok) Deputy District Judge [1] CACC365/2000 [2] DCCC1028/2018 [3] DCCC407 & 620/2017 [4] CACC75/2020 [5] CACC198/2015, [2017] 1 HKLRD 392 (Chinese original), [2017] 1 HKLRD 400 (English translation) [6] CACC120/2024, [2025] HKCA 567, [2025] 4 HKLRD 258
DCCC 1295/2025 [2026] HKDC 909 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1295 OF 2025 ________________________ HKSAR v WONG Chun-ho ________________________ Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok Date: 19 May 2026 Present: Mr Michael Leung Hoi Ming, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR Mr Terry Kan Wing Fai, instructed by CLM LAWYERS, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant Offence(s): [1] Theft (盜竊罪) [2] Driving while disqualified (於取消駕駛資格期間駕駛) [3] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (沒有第三者保險而使用汽車) ________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1. The defendant pleads guilty to three charges. Charge 1 is for the offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Charge 2 is for the offence of driving while disqualified, contrary to section 44(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. Charge 3 is for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272. The defendant also admits the relevant facts. Accordingly, he is convicted of all these three charges. Admitted Facts 2. Mr Ngan Tak-wai (“Mr Ngan”) was at all material times the owner of a motorcycle bearing registration mark WM5196 (“WM5196”) which he bought in late 2023 at the price of HK$28,000. He never authorized anyone to use WM5196 and kept the keys of WM5196 to himself only. 3. Around 2:30 am on 2 May 2025, Mr Ngan parked WM5196 at the roadside outside Heng Fai House, Tin Heng Estate, Tin Shui Wai which was near his home. He had however forgotten to remove the ignition key from WM5196 before he left and returned home. 4. Around 1 pm on the same day, Mr Ngan realized that he had left the ignition key with WM5196. He immediately went downstairs his home to where he parked the motorcycle. WM5196 was still there. Mr Ngan then headed back his home for his personal belongings which he forgot to bring along when he left home in a hurry. However, he again forgot to remove the ignition key from WM5196. 5. Upon his return about 8 minutes later, Mr Ngan saw the defendant sitting on WM5196. Mr Ngan did not know the defendant, nor had Mr Ngan met him before. At that time, WM5196 was about 10 metres away from where Mr Ngan had parked it. Since Mr Ngan believed that the defendant was stealing WM5196, he started filming the defendant with his phone immediately and confronted him. 6. The video taken by Mr Ngan showed that the defendant was wearing a helmet and a glove on his right hand. He was sitting on WM5196 with its engine running. A beige helmet belonging to Mr Ngan was lying on the ground. Mr Ngan asked the defendant what he was doing. The defendant replied that there was key on the motorcycle and that he was driving it away. Mr Ngan told the defendant that it was his motorcycle and that he would call the police. The defendant repeated that the motorcycle was with key and claimed that the motorcycle belonged to his friend. He also denied stealing the motorcycle and stated that he was at most taking it away and that he would return it to Mr Ngan. 7. The defendant then offered to park WM5196 back to its original position and went on to restart its engine. However, instead of doing what he had said, he accelerated and drove WM5196 towards the main road. Mr Ngan immediately chased after the defendant and stopped him from driving away. 8. After Mr Ngan had stopped the defendant from driving WM5196 further, he stopped filming. The defendant attempted to flee from the scene, but Mr Ngan followed him. Mr Ngan eventually intercepted the defendant outside the “Hong Kong Christian Service” at Heng Chui House. A report was made to the police. 9. About 2 pm on the same day, i.e. 2 May 2025, PC27902 arrested the defendant. 10. Mr. Ngan subsequently inspected WM5196. He found that WM5196 was damaged in the crash when he tried to regain control of it from the defendant. There were a crack and scratch marks near its left blinker, as well as a crack on its left blinker cover, and its left handlebar was displaced, which affected the steering of WM5196. The repairing costs were HK$10,300. 11. According to the record with the Transport Department, the defendant has never obtained any full driver’s licence upon the expiry of his provisional driver’s licence on 29 December 2003. 12. The defendant was disqualified from driving between 17 October 2024 and 16 October 2026 in Case No. DCCC86/2024. 13. At the time when the defendant was driving WM5196, he was using a motor vehicle on a road without third party insurance. Criminal record of the defendant 14. The defendant was sentenced by the Courts on 20 previous occasions involving a total of 35 charges, including 11 charges of theft, 2 charges of attempted theft, and two charges of conspiracy to steal (i.e. 15 charges in total which were the same as Charge 1 or similar in nature), as well as 3 charges of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (which were the same as Charge 3). He has not been convicted of the same offence (driving while disqualified) as Charge 2 before. 15. It is worth noting that the defendant has two previous convictions of taking conveyance without authority, and 3 previous convictions for driving without a valid driving licence. 16. I shall say more later about the offences committed by the defendant that formed the subject matter of his two District Court cases, i.e. DCCC245/2021 and DCCC86/2024, and their sentences which were imposed upon him on 7 July 2021 and 17 October 2024 respectively 17. The defendant’s remaining convictions were for 4 charges of gambling not in a gambling establishment, and one charge each for operating a gambling establishment, possession of a false instrument, impersonating a police officer, common assault, possession of offensive weapon, possession of dangerous drugs, possession of instrument for unlawful purpose, and criminal damage. 18. The defendant was last sentenced on 15 July 2025 for the offence of criminal damage to 3 weeks’ imprisonment (WKCC 481/2025). Since he had been remanded in custody before sentence, he completed serving this sentence on the same day of his sentence, though he remains in custody due to the present case. Personal and family background 19. The defendant is now 44 years old and will turn 45 in about a month’s time. He was born on 10 June 1981 in Hong Kong. He received education up to Form 3. He had previously worked as a transportation worker. Since his release from prison in DCCC86/2024 in or about November 2024, he was unemployed and supported by his elder brother. 20. As to his family members, the defendant has never seen his mother in his life and knows nothing about her. His father passed away in 2021. He has an elder brother who is now 47 years old. 21. The defendant got married when he was 32 years old. He later divorced his wife and had a relationship with his ex-girlfriend who gave birth to his twin daughters who are now 13 years old. The two daughters are now under the care of the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) and living in an institution provided by SWD. Mitigation 22. Mr Terry Kan, the learned counsel for the defendant, produces a letter from the defendant in which the defendant expresses his remorse for committing these offences out of a moment of greed. He regrets that his remand has caused him to lose the time he could otherwise have spent with his twin daughters. He says that he wishes to return to the society soon to take care of them. He says that whilst on remand, he applies for work proactively to acquire skills so that it may be easier for him to find a job after release. He says that he now understands that family is the most important part of his life. He asks for leniency. 23. Mr Kan points out that the main mitigating factor is the defendant’s guilty plea. Referring to cases including HKSAR v Cheng Chun Ming[1], HKSAR v Chan Chun-man[2] and HKSAR v Leung King-cheong[3], Mr Kan submits that the proper starting point of the sentence for the theft offence (Charge 1) is two years’ imprisonment. He refers to HKSAR v Chung Ho Yin (鍾浩賢)[4] and submits that 6 month’s imprisonment is the proper starting point for each of Charges 2 and 3. He submits that the defendant should be given one-third discount for his timely guilty plea, and that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 should run concurrently, and that in light of the totality principle, a total term of 18 months’ imprisonment will be the proper sentence. Reasons for sentence 24. Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, provides that any person convicted of theft is liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 25. In the present case, the defendant stole a motorcycle worth HK28,000 when it was purchased by its owner Mr Ngan in late 2023. He tried to drive away the motorcycle but was stopped by Mr Ngan, and he was arrested by the police. The motorcycle was recovered by Mr Ngan though it was damaged in the crash when Mr Ngan was trying to regain control of it from the defendant. The repairing costs were HK$10,300. 26. In the case of Cheng Chun Ming cited by Mr Kan, the Court of Appeal at paragraph 14 of the judgment made it clear that cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars were very serious offences and inevitably called for immediate custodial sentences of considerable length. It upheld the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment adopted by the trial judge for the theft of a private car worth HK$158,000 by the defendant who delivered the stolen car to a used car dealer to display it for sale on his behalf. 27. In the case of Chan Chung Man, also cited by Mr Kan, the learned deputy District Judge KH Cheang adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for theft of a motor car in light of the relatively low value of the stolen car that had been used for about 20 years by the car owner. The learned judge referred to paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Yu Chi Chiu (余志釗)[5] in which the Court of Appeal explained why theft of a vehicle was regarded as a serious offence: “However, for the sake of completeness, I will also point out that the theft of a vehicle is a serious crime for the following reasons: (1) Regardless of the make/model of a vehicle, it is a valuable property worth a lot of money. (2) A vehicle is also a private space that occasionally or even permanently stores all sorts of items that bear personal data and/or tend to expose confidential information (e.g. phones, name cards, different types of documents/letters, and all types of memory cards or access cards). (3) A vehicle is often parked in the public place, making it prone to be a target of theft. (4) To the owner of a private vehicle, the loss of his vehicle will cause him great inconvenience as he will lose his means of transportation. And when a vehicle is used for a commercial or work purpose, the loss of it means that the owner will lose his paraphernalia for making money, which in turn will cause additional economic loss or even affect his livelihood.” 28. The Court of Appeal in Yu Chi Chiu further stated in paragraph 11 of the judgment that: “Regardless of the purpose of thieves and whether the number of vehicle thefts is rising sharply, the severity of vehicle thefts is reflected in the four points mentioned above. If other factors are involved (e.g. the vehicle theft is carefully planned, the stolen vehicle is resold or used to commit other crimes), they will be considered as aggravating factors.” 29. Yu Chi Chiu involved the theft of a light goods vehicle, and the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The observations made by the Court of Appeal as quoted above have been consistently followed by the courts in Hong Kong, and were reiterated by the Court of Appeal recently in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Ka On (張家銨)[6]. 30. In Cheung Ka On, the appellant was convicted of a number of charges including theft of a motorcycle and attempted theft of another motorcycle. In paragraph 31 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal quoted paragraph 10 of the judgment of Yu Chi Chiu and went on to make it clear that the same observations applied to not just theft of a motor car but also theft of a motorcycle. The Court of Appeal stated that: “It will be noted that the Court drew no distinction between the make of vehicle stolen and we do not see why a motorcycle should be treated any less seriously than a motor car. Indeed arguably, a motorcycle is easier to conceal and disguise and makes it harder to recover.” (italics for emphasis) 31. Not only stating that theft of a motorcycle should not be treated less seriously than theft of a motor car, the Court of Appeal went on to state, in paragraph 32 of its judgment, that: “The usual starting point for an offence in relation to the theft of a motor vehicle, or handling a stolen motor vehicle is 3 years’ imprisonment, although it could go above or below that figure depending on the circumstances of the case”. 32. In Cheung Ka On, the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for the theft charge, and imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months for the attempted theft charge. The Court of Appeal ruled that the appellant could not reasonably complain against each of these starting points, neither of which exceeded 3 years’ imprisonment. 33. In my view, the defendant knew clearly what sentence might be imposed on him when he stole WM5196 on 2 May 2025 because he had been sentenced for stealing motorcycles before. According to his criminal record, he has 15 previous convictions for the offences of theft, attempted theft and conspiracy to steal. While his criminal record does not reveal what he had stolen, or what he had attempted or intended to steal on all these occasions, it is clear from the Reasons for Sentence in Case Nos. DCCC245/2021 and DCCC86/2024 that he had on various occasions stolen motorcycles. 34. In DCCC245/2021, the defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of 7 charges, including 4 charges of theft, one charge of driving without a valid driving licence, one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and one charge of possession of instruments fit for unlawful purposes. 35. The 4 theft offences related to theft of 4 motorcycles by the defendant one after the other on 4 different days between 6 September 2020 and 5 October 2020. The value of the motorcycles was HK$38,000, HK$18,000, HK$33,800 and HK$20,000 respectively. At the time of his arrest on 19 October 2020, he was found in possession of skeleton keys fit and intended for stealing motorcycles. 36. The learned sentencing judge adopted starting points of 2 years’ imprisonment for the first two thefts, but imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months for the third theft, and imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for the 4th theft because the defendant repeated the same offence. A starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment was adopted for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, and a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was adopted for possession of instrument fit for unlawful purposes. 37. For all 7 charges, the defendant was sentenced on 7 July 2021 to a total term of 30 months’ imprisonment after each starting point was discounted by one-third because of the defendant’s guilty plea, and in accordance with the principle of totality. 38. Since the defendant was arrested on 19 October 2020 for this case, and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment only, coupled with the one-third discount of the sentence usually given to a prisoner because of his good conduct in prison, he was presumably released from prison in or about June 2022, although Mr Kan says that the defendant does not remember when he was released. 39. In Case No. DCCC86/2024, the defendant was convicted upon his plea of 4 charges, including one charge of theft, one charge of taking conveyance without authority, one charge of driving without a valid driving licence, and one charge of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 40. The facts were that the defendant stole a motorcycle worth HK$18,000 sometime between the night of 20 March 2023 and the morning of 21 March 2023. At night of the same day, a friend of the motorcycle owner noticed that a man parked the stolen motorcycle at a certain location and left behind his helmet on the pedals of the motorcycle. He notified the motorcycle owner to get back his lost motorcycle. The defendant’s DNA was found on the helmet left behind by the man. 41. The defendant committed the taking conveyance without authority charge on 8 May 2023 when he drove away another motorcycle but he was arrested by the police. He was found to be driving without a valid driving licence and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 42. In other words, the defendant committed these offences just 9 to 11 months after he was discharged from prison having served the sentences in DCCC245/2021. 43. The learned sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for the theft charge, and enhanced it by 3 months in light of the defendant’s criminal record. He did not enhance the sentence for the taking conveyance without authority charge on the ground that the defendant had only one prior similar conviction. 44. For the offences of driving without a valid driving licence, and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, the learned judge adopted a starting point of 2 months’ imprisonment and 6 months’ imprisonment respectively, which he enhanced due to the defendant’s criminal record by one month and 2 months respectively. In other words, the notional starting points after trial were 3 months’ imprisonment and 8 months’ imprisonment respectively for these two charges. 45. For all 4 charges, the defendant was sentenced to a total term of 21 months’ imprisonment on 17 October 2024 after the learned judge discounted the individual sentences by one-third due to the defendant’s guilty plea and in light of the principle of totality. 46. Presumably, the defendant was required to serve only 31 days after his sentence on 17 October 2024 in accordance with Rule 69(1) of the Prison Rules (Cap 234) because the time he had spent in custody since his arrest on 8 May 2023 until the date of sentence had already exceeded the term he had to serve if he was given one-third discount due to good conduct in prison. Mr Kan confirms that the defendant was released in November 2024. 47. Due to the gravity of the offence and the need of deterrence as stated by the Court of Appeal in the authorities referred to above, there is no doubt whatsoever that the only appropriate sentencing option in this case is imprisonment. The defendant of course cannot complain when he is snapped with an immediate custodial sentence because he knows full well that this will be the outcome from his personal court experiences. 48. In respect of Charge 1, the theft was made possible from the fact that Mr Ngan had left behind the ignition key in WM5196 after he had parked the motorcycle and left, and the defendant might be tempted by the occasion to steal. From this perspective, it might well be said that the offence was opportunistic. However, when Mr Ngan appeared and tried to stop the defendant from driving away, the fact that the defendant claimed that the motorcycle belonged to his friend and still tried to drive it away showed that he had by then formed a definite intention to steal the motorcycle. When the confrontation between him and Mr Ngan was going on, the fact that he told Mr Ngan on the one hand that he would park the motorcycle back to its original parking location, but on the other hand he accelerated and drove WM5196 towards the main road showed that he had the full dishonest intent to deprive Mr Ngan permanently of the motorcycle even though the vehicle owner was already there to take back his property. I find that the defendant’s act of theft was no longer opportunistic at that point of time, which means that the fact that Mr Ngan had left the ignition key in WM5194 did not lower the criminalities of the offence and the defendant must bear full responsibility. 49. I take into account the facts pertaining to Charge 1, in particular the defendant’s behaviour at the material times, the value of the motorcycle being HK$28,000, and the damage done to the motorcycle that required Mr Ngan to spend HK$10,300 to repair it even though the motorcycle was recovered. I rule that the appropriate starting point of the sentence for Charge 1 is 24 months’ imprisonment. 50. I then consider whether there are aggravating factors that require an upward adjustment of the sentence. I note the following. 51. First, the defendant has multiple convictions relating to the offence of theft, and that prior to the commission of Charge 1, he had already stolen 4 motorcycles in Case No. DCCC245/2021, and stolen one motorcycle and took another motorcycle without authority of the owner in DCCC86/2024. In other words, he had committed offences in respect of at least 6 motorcycles. He had also been found once in possession of skeleton keys for stealing motorcycles. He is clearly a persistent offender. Second, he committed the offence in Charge 1 on 2 May 2025, which means that just 6 months or thereabout after his release from prison in November 2024 after serving his sentence in DCCC86/2024, he committed the same offence again. 52. I note that the Court of Appeal had stated in Yu Chi Chiu that as far as enhancing sentencing starting point was concerned, the factor of reoffending shortly after release was no different from that of having multiple similar convictions in the past, and that the former was at most proof of the latter: see paragraph 15 of the judgment. In other words, there should be only one enhancement rather than double enhancement. 53. I note that in DCCC86/2024, the learned sentencing judge had in fact increased the sentence for the theft offence from its starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment by 3 months to 27 months’ imprisonment due to the defendant’s criminal record. In fact, in DCCC245/2021, the learned sentencing judge had adopted a starting point for the third and fourth theft which were higher than the first two thefts, i.e. the learned judge adopted starting points of imprisonment for 27 months and 30 months respectively for the third and fourth theft instead of the 2 years’ imprisonment starting points for the first two thefts. The Reasons for Sentence of these two cases must have been read out to the defendant. It follows that he knew clearly at the time when he committed Charge 1 that he would receive a sentence higher than the normal sentence due to his criminal past, and that his sentence could be as high as 30 months’ imprisonment if not longer. 54. Furthermore, it is clear that even though that the defendant was given a sentence enhanced by 3 months for the theft offence in DCCC86/2024, it did not have the intended deterrent effect on him since he committed the same offence shortly after release from prison. It means that it is necessary to impose a higher enhanced sentence. 55. For these reasons, I adjust the starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment upward by 6 months. I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 1 is 30 months’ imprisonment. 56. It is also important to point out at this stage that there is another aggravating feature. The defendant was convicted of the offence of criminal damage in Case No. WKCC481/2025. According to the relevant court papers, the defendant committed this offence on 28 January 2025 when he splashed black paint on the door of the residence of the victim for the purpose of debt collection. He was arrested on the same day of the offence. He was taken to Court on 7 February 2025 with bail granted to him. He appeared in Court again on 1 April 2025 when the case was further adjourned to 30 April 2025 for him to seek assistance from the Duty Lawyer Service with bail extended on the same terms. However, he did not appear in Court on 30 April 2025 and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. While he was jumping court bail, he committed Charge 1 on 2 May 2025. 57. As revealed in my sentencing process, I have not taken this aggravating feature into account in enhancing the individual sentence for any of the 3 charges in the present case, but I shall take this matter into account when I consider the totality of the sentences. 58. For the offence of driving while disqualified (Charge 2), according to section 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, the maximum sentence is a fine at level 3 (i.e. HK$10,000) and imprisonment for 12 months. In addition, according to section 44(2)(a), the offender shall be disqualified, in the case of a first conviction, for a period of not less than 12 months unless the Court considers that there are special reasons for ordering a shorter disqualification, or not to disqualify at all. Section 44(3) directs that this period of disqualification shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road Traffic Ordinance. 59. Mr Kan stresses that the defendant has no prior conviction for this offence. He cites the case of Chung Ho Yin and submits that a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment will be appropriate. Mr Kan refers to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment. 60. In Chung Ho Yin, the appellant was involved in two sets of offences committed on 7 January 2019 and 28 January 2019. In each set of the offences, he drove a motor vehicle while disqualified and hence without third party insurance. He was also involved in the offence of dangerous driving in the first set of offences, and involved in trafficking in dangerous drugs in the second set of offences. He had one previous conviction for driving while disqualified and two previous convictions for using a motor vehicle without third party insurance: see paragraph 17 of the judgment. The Court of Appeal held that the proper starting point for the first set of driving while disqualified and without third party insurance offences to be 6 months’ imprisonment each: see paragraph 42 of the judgment, and for the second set of such offences, the proper starting point was 9 months’ imprisonment each, taking into account the appellant’s previous convictions and offending for the same offence: see paragraph 43 of the judgment. 61. In the present case, the defendant has no prior conviction for the offence of driving whilst disqualified. Despite the submissions of Mr Kan, I adopt a lower starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment. Since the defendant has no similar conviction before, the sentence will not be enhanced on account of his record. He committed this offence when he jumped court bail. The individual sentence will not be adjusted upward on this ground, but it will be taken into account when the question of totality is considered. In other words, I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 2 is 3 months’ imprisonment. 62. Mr Kan makes no submissions on the question of disqualification. There is clearly no special reason for ordering a shorter disqualification or not ordering disqualification at all. I shall order that the defendant is to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 18 months. 63. For the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (Charge 3), according to section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272, the maximum sentence is a fine at level 3 (i.e. HK$10,000) and imprisonment for 12 months, and disqualified from driving for not less than 12 months and not more than 3 years from the date of conviction unless special reason exists, and section 4(2)(b) deemed a disqualification under section 4(2)(a) of Cap. 272 to be a disqualification by virtue of a conviction under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. 64. Mr Kan also relies upon Chung Ho Yin and submits that the appropriate starting point is 6 months’ imprisonment. 65. The present case is the defendant’s fourth conviction for the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. 66. In DCCC86/2024 when the defendant was sentenced for this offence, the learned judge adopted a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, and enhanced it by 2 months because the defendant had two similar previous convictions. The enhancement clearly did not have the desired deterrent effect on the defendant. 67. I adopt 6 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 3 and enhance it by 3 months to 9 months’ imprisonment, which is the same as the sentence found to be appropriate by the Court of Appeal in Chung Ho Yin, and a recognition of the need to enhance the deterrent effect of the present sentence when the previous sentence on the defendant in DCCC86/2024 failed to achieve its purpose. Hence, I rule that the notional starting point of the sentence after trial for Charge 3 is 9 months’ imprisonment. 68. Mr Kan makes no submissions on the question of disqualification. There is clearly no special reason for ordering a shorter disqualification or not ordering disqualification at all. I shall order that the defendant is to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 24 months. 69. As to mitigating factors, the defendant enters a timely guilty plea. He is of course entitled to be given the usual one-third discount. 70. The defendant claims that he is remorseful, and asks for a chance for early release so that he may take care of his twin daughters now aged 13. He is basically repeating what he had put forward in mitigation when he was sentenced in DCCC86/2024. But he reoffended shortly after his discharge from prison. For this reason, it is difficult not to doubt the sincerity of the defendant. In any event, even if he is telling the truth now, such matters do not have the effect of reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence due to the gravity of the offences and the need to deter the defendant from committing the same or similar offences again, and to deter others from acting in the same way as the defendant. 71. For these reasons, in so far as the various sentences of imprisonment are concerned, I sentence the defendant as follows: Charge 1 20 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2 2 months’ imprisonment; and Charge 3 6 months’ imprisonment. 72. I shall now consider whether these sentences should run wholly or partially concurrently or consecutively. The principle of totality requires that the effective total term of the sentences should not be unduly lengthy and jeopardize the defendant’s chances of rehabilitation, but it should on the other hand properly reflect the overall criminalities of all the offences. 73. Mr Kan asks for the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently. He further submits that it is only necessary to order two months of these concurrent terms to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. Mr Kan’s submission is of course made on the basis that the appropriate sentence for Charge 1 should be 16 months’ imprisonment only, and those for Charges 2 and 3 should be concurrent terms of 4 months’ imprisonment. 74. In my view, in so far as the offences in Charges 2 and 3 are concerned, while both involved the defendant driving the motorcycle WM5196, their criminalities do not overlap one another completely. The offence of driving while disqualified involved the defendant’s contempt of the Court, while the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance involved the defendant putting ordinary road users and drivers at risk of not being covered by insurance when the defendant drove. Hence, it is arguable that the sentences for these two charges should run at least partially consecutively, and not to run wholly concurrently. 75. In any event, as mentioned before, the defendant committed all these offences when he jumped court bail for another offence. This aggravating feature has not been factored in the determination of the individual sentence of each charge. When a defendant commits another offence while on bail, the court is entitled to impose a heavier sentence on him so as to punish him for abusing the liberty given to him by the Court and for his contempt towards the Court. The same principle must also apply to those who jump bail. As said before, I shall take this matter into account when considering the overall sentence to be imposed on the defendant. 76. If the defendant had committed these offences without jumping court bail in WKCC481/2025, I would have ordered that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently, and 3 months of these two concurrent terms to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 23 months’ imprisonment, meaning that I would have adopted a starting point of 34½ months’ imprisonment for all charges. I take the view that the criminalities of the driving while disqualified and without third party insurance offences did not overlap with the criminalities of the theft offence, and it is the need to avoid an unduly lengthy overall sentence that makes this Court order a partially consecutive sentence. 77. However, the defendant had committed these offences while he was jumping court bail, the overall sentence must reflect this additional criminality. For this reason, I shall adopt a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment as the effective total terms of imprisonment for all the charges. Upon the defendant’s guilty plea, the overall sentence to be imposed on the defendant will be 24 months’ imprisonment. 78. To achieve this result, I shall order that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 are to run concurrently, and 4 months of these concurrent terms are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. 79. In so far as disqualification from driving is concerned, I have already said that the defendant will be disqualified from driving for 18 months in respect of Charge 2, and disqualified from driving for 24 months in respect of Charge 3. 80. In DCCC86/2024, the defendant is disqualified from driving for two years from the date of sentence, i.e. 17 October 2024 under section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272, and this disqualification is deemed by section 4(2)(b) to be a disqualification by virtue of a conviction under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. Since this disqualification order will only expire on 16 October 2026, and by virtue of section 44(3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance which directs that any period of disqualification ordered under section 44(2) shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the 18 months’ disqualification order imposed on the defendant in respect of Charge 2 will start to run only on 17 October 2026 after the previous disqualification order has expired. In other words, the defendant will be disqualified from driving until 16 April 2027 by virtue of the sentence imposed on him in Charge 2. 81. On the other hand, for the order disqualifying the defendant from driving for 24 months in Charge 3, that order is to start running from the date of sentence, i.e. today, and that this order will expire only after 18 May 2028. 82. To make the matter simple for the defendant, he is now specifically informed that he is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class up till the end of 18 May 2028. He is warned that if he drives any motor vehicle, or applies for a driving licence to drive any motor vehicle before the end of 18 May 2028, he will be committing the offence of driving while disqualified, and he will most likely be committing the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance as well. 83. Just to recap, the sentences imposed on the defendant are as follows: Charge 1 20 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2 2 months’ imprisonment, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 18 months, to run consecutively to the disqualification order imposed in DCCC86/2024, i.e. to run from 17 October 2026 onwards for 18 months; and Charge 3 6 months’ imprisonment, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle of any class for 24 months with effect from today. 84. I further order that the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 are to run concurrently, but 4 months of these two concurrent sentences are to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 24 months’ imprisonment. (W.K. Kwok) Deputy District Judge [1] CACC365/2000 [2] DCCC1028/2018 [3] DCCC407 & 620/2017 [4] CACC75/2020 [5] CACC198/2015, [2017] 1 HKLRD 392 (Chinese original), [2017] 1 HKLRD 400 (English translation) [6] CACC120/2024, [2025] HKCA 567, [2025] 4 HKLRD 258