A A
B B
DCCC 326/2017
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 326 OF 2017 E
F ------------------------- F
HKSAR
G G
v
H MUHAMMAD WAQAS H
--------------------------
I I
J Before: Deputy District Judge M Chow J
Date: 11 August 2017
K K
Present: Miss Irene Poon, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
L HKSAR L
Mr Chow Chun Man, of C M Chow & Company, assigned by
M M
the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
O (2) Using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (意圖 O
欺詐而在一輛汽車上使用標記)
P P
(3) Careless driving (不小心駕駛)
Q Q
(4) Driving without a valid driving licence (駕駛時無有效駕
R 駛執照) R
(5) Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (沒有
S S
第三者保險而使用汽車)
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
(6) Failing to stop after accident whereby damage was caused
C to another vehicle (發生意外以致另一車輛受到損害後沒 C
有停車)
D D
(7) Failing to report an accident involving damage (沒有報告
E E
涉及損害的意外)
F (8) Making false report of commission of offence (虛報有人 F
犯罪)
G G
(9) Escape from lawful custody (從合法羈押逃脫)
H H
(10) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
I I
-----------------------------------------
J J
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
K ----------------------------------------- K
L L
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 10 charges:-
M M
(1) Charge 1, theft of vehicle, contrary to section 9 of Theft
N N
Ordinance, Cap 210;
O O
(2) Charge 2, using markings on a vehicle with intent to
P P
deceive, contrary to section 111(1)(a) of Road Traffic
Q Ordinance, Cap 374; Q
R R
(3) Charge 3, careless driving, contrary to section 38(1) of
S S
Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374;
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(4) Charge 4, driving without a valid driving licence,
C contrary to section 42(1) (and?) (4) of the Road Traffic C
Ordinance, Cap 374;
D D
E (5) Charge 5, using a motor vehicle without third party E
insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of Motor
F F
Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap
G 272; G
H H
(6) Charge 6, failing to stop after incident, contrary to
I section 56(1)(b) and (5) of Road Traffic Ordinance, I
Cap 374;
J J
K (7) Charge 7, failing to report an incident, contrary to K
section 56(2A) and (6) of Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap
L L
374;
M M
(8) Charge 8, making false report, contrary to section
N N
64(a), Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232;
O O
(9) Charge 9, escape from lawful custody, contrary to
P P
common law and punishable under section 101I of
Q Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221; Q
R R
(10) Charge 10, possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to
S section 8(1)(a) and (2) of Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, S
Cap 134.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Summary of facts
C C
Charge 1
D D
E 2. On 19 December 2016 the defendant stole PW1’s private car, E
KM8879, which was parked in a street in Tuen Mun, with the car key
F F
inserted in the ignition without locking the door. PW1’s friends posted the
G incident on Facebook. G
H H
Careless driving
I I
3. At the material time, PW2 was driving along Tuen Mun and
J J
saw the stolen vehicle being driven by the defendant. As PW2 had seen
K the Facebook message before, he noticed that beneath the number plate of K
“GT426” there were other characters, that was “KM”.
L L
M 4. When approaching a traffic light, PW4 stopped his vehicle in M
front of the red light. PW2 stopped behind him. The defendant suddenly
N N
cut into their lane. The left-front part of the stolen vehicle collided with
O the right-back part of PW4’s vehicle and also PW2’s right-front bumper. O
P P
5. PW2 and his passenger, PW3, went up to the defendant, but
Q could not open the car door. PW3 used his elbow to break the car window Q
of the driver’s seat. The defendant kicked open the car door and escaped
R R
after some struggle with PW2 and 3.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
6. The police arrived and found a card-holder containing
C different cards, including the defendant’s ID card, mobile phone and other C
personal items which did not belong to PW1.
D D
E 7. Transport Department confirmed that the defendant was not a E
holder of any driving licence, while the insurance company also confirmed
F F
that the defendant was not covered by third party insurance.
G G
False police report, Charge 8
H H
I 8. On the same day at about 8.16 pm, the defendant called “999” I
and reported that he had been robbed by three men and they hit him with a
J J
rod. He ran away, leaving his jacket and mobile phone behind. During the
K enquiry, the police found out that the items in the stolen vehicle belonged K
to the defendant. He was arrested for an offence of misleading a police
L L
officer.
M M
Taking conveyancing without authorities and driving without third party
N N
insurance
O O
9. Under caution, the defendant said that he did not have a
P P
driving licence. He took a minibus to Tsuen Wan and did not drive any
Q car. Q
R R
The escape
S S
10. On 4 January 2017, PW3 identified that the defendant being
T T
the driver of the stolen vehicle. During the remand in the temporary cell,
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
the defendant was allowed to make a phone call at his request. He was
C taken to the formal male cell, when the police opened the gate to the cell, C
the defendant, who was not handcuffed at that time, ran away.
D D
E 11. He jumped over the front desk, pushed the computer monitor E
down onto the floor, ran downstairs to the lobby, ran across the road into
F F
the West Rail Station, then to Tuen Mun Town Park. Two policemen
G chased after him. He was found hiding at the bushes on the slope. He was G
arrested for escaping from lawful custody.
H H
I Possession of dangerous drugs I
J J
12. During a search on the defendant on the same day, it was
K found that his underpants were lowered to below his knees. Dangerous K
drugs were found in his underpants. Under caution, he said that he picked
L L
up the bags of dangerous drugs from the temporary cell inside the police
M station and he hid it in his underpants. M
N N
Previous conviction
O O
13. The defendant had four previous: two convictions of theft in
P P
2009; two convictions of robbery in 2012. He received a total sentence of
Q 6 years. Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
14. He is now 23, came from Pakistan in 1993. In September
T T
2016 he married and his wife is now living in Pakistan. Before the arrest,
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
he lived with his family in Hong Kong. He worked as a delivery worker
C with a monthly earnings of $13,000. C
D D
15. As to Charge 1, he came across PW1’s vehicle in the street
E and it was out of fun that he committed the offence. He said he would not E
touch any vehicle in the future.
F F
G 16. The accident occurred because he was nervous at the material G
time when he drove PW1’s car. He lied to the police because he took some
H H
bad advice from his friends to make a false report to the police.
I I
17. He knows now he is wrong, but the offences were not pre-
J J
meditated or planned. He is now remorseful. He has 3,000 to 4,000 dollars
K at home but could not get in touch with any of his family members, as he K
wished to compensate the three vehicle-owners.
L L
M Sentence M
Theft of vehicle
N N
O 18. PW1 parked his car in the street without locking the car door O
and leaving the car key in the ignition. The defendant then committed the
P P
careless driving offences, causing damage to PW1’s car. The stolen
Q vehicle was worth about $80,000. Q
R R
19. There are no guidelines for offences of theft of vehicle. The
S court takes a serious view that a deterrent sentence is required. In HKSAR S
v Cheng Chung Ming, CACC 356/2000, the court said this: -
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B “Cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars are very B
serious offences and inevitably call for immediate custodial
C sentences of considerable length. This is absolutely necessary C
to act as a deterrent to a prevalent crime.”
D D
20. The court also upheld a starting point of 3 years’
E imprisonment for any offence of handling of a motor vehicle. E
F F
21. The defendant was an opportunistic handler.
G G
22. In HKSAR v Li Cheung Yin & Ors, CACC 313/2011, where
H H
the court held a 3-year starting point was appropriate for theft of a vehicle.
I I
J
23. I accept that the defendant was an opportunistic thief. He took J
the car when the door was unlocked and the car key was in the ignition.
K K
However, the car was damaged when the defendant cut into PW2 and 4’s
L lane carelessly. L
M M
24. The cost of repair of KM8879 was $8,000. He was not in a
N position to compensate PW1. N
O O
25. Taking into account that the stolen vehicle was worth about
P $80,000, the damage to the vehicle was not serious (at least PW1 got it P
repaired), the defendant acted alone, I am satisfied that the starting point
Q Q
after trial is 3 years. Giving the defendant one-third discount, it comes
R down to 2 years. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge 2 to 7
C C
26. The defendant used another number plate, GT426, to cover
D D
the original stolen vehicle. The whole purpose was to prevent the police
E or PW1 to track down the whereabouts of KM8879. E
F F
27. On the other hand, the defendant did not have a driving
G licence and driving without third party insurance placed all the road users G
at risk. When there are damages or personal injuries occurring in a car
H H
accident, the road users are not covered by insurance. This is exactly what
I happened here, when the defendant is not in a position to compensate the I
victims.
J J
K 28. His driving manner was bad. PW2 stopped his vehicle behind K
PW4. Both vehicles were stationary in front of the traffic light. There was
L L
not enough space for the defendant to move in. It was not only bad driving
M manner; it was also bad judgment as well. He ran away from the scene. M
This was an irresponsible attitude. When other drivers got off their cars
N N
and went up to him, all he did was to avoid them.
O O
29. The defence refer me to a case of HKSAR v Ejiobu Lazarus,
P P
HCMA 334/2016. At paragraph 12 of the judgment, another case, HKSAR
Q v Ngan Tin Hung, HCMA 647/2011, was also quoted in relation to driving Q
without driving licence and without third party insurance.
R R
S 30. Each case depended on its own facts. There is no tariff for S
this type of offences.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
31. Having said that, I still have regard to maximum sentence on
C each charge. C
D D
32. Charge 2 is a serious offence, carries a heavy maximum
E sentence of 3 years and a fine of $10,000. For the reasons stated above, I E
adopt a starting point of 12 months, reduced to 8 months for his guilty plea.
F F
G 33. Charge 3 is the careless driving offence. Taking into account G
that it was a stolen vehicle, further aggravated by pre-meditation of using
H H
a false number plate without valid driving licence and third party insurance,
I bad driving manner and judgment, I am satisfied that a starting point of 3 I
months is appropriate. I reduce to 2 months because of his guilty plea.
J J
K 34. Charge 4, maximum sentence for a first offender for driving K
without a valid driving licence is 3 months and $5,000. I adopt a starting
L L
point of 4½ weeks, reduced to 3 weeks.
M M
35. Charge 5 is the offence of without third party insurance.
N N
Maximum sentence is $10,000 and 12 months, with a disqualification order
O between 12 to 36 months unless there is a special reason for not making O
such an order. The defence do not pursue on the point of special reason. I
P P
therefore order 24 months of disqualification for not driving any type of
Q vehicle from the date of conviction. I also consider that 4½ months is Q
appropriate in the present case; discounts to 3 months.
R R
S 36. Charge 6, failing to stop, is a serious offence. A maximum S
sentence is $10,000 and 12 months. I take 4½ months as the starting point.
T T
Granting one-third discount, it comes down to 3 months.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 37. Charge 7 is an offence for failing to report, a maximum C
sentence of $15,000 and 6 months. I consider that 3 months is appropriate
D D
in the present case. I also reduce the sentence to 2 months to reflect his
E guilty plea. E
F F
38. Taking into account of the totality principle, I order all the
G sentences in Charge 2 to 7 be run concurrently. That is a sentence of 8 G
months. I further order that 4 months be run consecutively to Charge 1.
H H
For Charge 1 to 7, the total sentence is now 2 years 4 months.
I I
Charge 8, making false report
J J
K 39. Clearly, after the car accident, the defendant left all his K
belongings in the car, including his ID card, his jacket and his mobile
L L
phone. The defendant could not get back his belongings and he lied to the
M police that he was robbed by three men. M
N N
40. But what he did not realize was that the police was
O investigating into the car accident offence, when one of the drivers O
disappeared. The car was a stolen vehicle. He drove the car without a
P P
driving licence, without third party insurance, used another car’s number
Q plate to cover up the original number plate, and hit the other two cars when Q
he changed lane. He further lied to the police to cover his misdeeds.
R R
S 41. One cannot dispute that this is a bad case of misleading a S
police officer. He wasted the police’s manpower.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
42. Section 64(a) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, carries
C a maximum sentence of 6 months and a fine of $1,000. C
D D
43. It is clear that a fine is inappropriate in the present case.
E Anyone commits a serious offence such as theft of vehicle then followed E
by a series of crime cannot expect a light sentence. I consider a proper
F F
sentence should be 3 months, reduced to 2 months, to reflect his guilty plea.
G I order 1 month be run consecutively to Charge 1. The total sentence is G
now 2 years 5 months.
H H
I 44. Charge 9 and 10 were incidents that took place on 4 January I
2017.
J J
K Charge 9, escape from lawful custody K
L L
45. The defendant made excuses to request a phone call so that he
M had an opportunity to be taken out from the temporary cell. At that time M
he was not handcuffed. Looking at the photos provided by the prosecution,
N N
it was just a bare cell with a bench for sitting. This was a calculated move
O by the defendant. He took the opportunity to run away from the police O
station.
P P
Q 46. By reference to the photos, it was quite a distance from the Q
police station to where he was rearrested in the Tuen Mun Park. According
R R
to Sentencing in Hong Kong (2015), seventh edition, page 638, it states
S that the sentence tends to be in the range of 3 to 12 months. S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
47. Taking into account that it was a calculated move by the
C defendant and he was soon rearrested not too far away from the police C
station, I consider a starting point of 6 months is appropriate to reflect the
D D
gravity of the offence. One-third discount, the sentence is reduced to 4
E months. E
F F
10th charge
G G
48. This is a charge of simple possession - 0.89 grammes of a
H H
powder containing cocaine - and there is authority to say that usual
I sentence is in the range of 12 to 18 months. In view of the quantity of the I
drug offence, I take 12 months as the starting point, reduce to 8 months.
J J
K 49. As to Charge 9 and 10, I order both sentences to run K
concurrently, out of which 4 months to run consecutively to Charge 1.
L L
M 50. The final sentence is 2 years 9 months. M
N N
51. Conclusion:-
O O
(1) Charge 1: 2 years;
P P
(2) Charge 2: 8 months;
Q (3) Charge 3: 2 months; Q
(4) Charge 4: 3 weeks;
R R
(5) Charge 5: 3 months;
S 24 months’ disqualification order for driving any S
vehicle from the date of conviction;
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
(6) Charge 6: 3 months;
C (7) Charge 7: 2 months; C
D D
Charge 2 to 7: Sentences to run concurrently;
E 4 months to run consecutively to E
Charge 1;
F F
G (8) Charge 8: 2 months; G
1 month to run consecutively to Charge 1;
H H
I (9) Charge 9: 4 months; I
(10) Charge 10: 8 months;
J J
Both charges to run concurrently;
K 4 months to run consecutively to Charge 1. K
L L
52. Total sentence: 2 years 9 months.
M M
N N
O O
( M Chow )
P P
Deputy District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 326/2017
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 326 OF 2017 E
F ------------------------- F
HKSAR
G G
v
H MUHAMMAD WAQAS H
--------------------------
I I
J Before: Deputy District Judge M Chow J
Date: 11 August 2017
K K
Present: Miss Irene Poon, SPP of the Department of Justice, for
L HKSAR L
Mr Chow Chun Man, of C M Chow & Company, assigned by
M M
the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
O (2) Using markings on a vehicle with intent to deceive (意圖 O
欺詐而在一輛汽車上使用標記)
P P
(3) Careless driving (不小心駕駛)
Q Q
(4) Driving without a valid driving licence (駕駛時無有效駕
R 駛執照) R
(5) Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (沒有
S S
第三者保險而使用汽車)
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
(6) Failing to stop after accident whereby damage was caused
C to another vehicle (發生意外以致另一車輛受到損害後沒 C
有停車)
D D
(7) Failing to report an accident involving damage (沒有報告
E E
涉及損害的意外)
F (8) Making false report of commission of offence (虛報有人 F
犯罪)
G G
(9) Escape from lawful custody (從合法羈押逃脫)
H H
(10) Possession of a dangerous drug (管有危險藥物)
I I
-----------------------------------------
J J
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
K ----------------------------------------- K
L L
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 10 charges:-
M M
(1) Charge 1, theft of vehicle, contrary to section 9 of Theft
N N
Ordinance, Cap 210;
O O
(2) Charge 2, using markings on a vehicle with intent to
P P
deceive, contrary to section 111(1)(a) of Road Traffic
Q Ordinance, Cap 374; Q
R R
(3) Charge 3, careless driving, contrary to section 38(1) of
S S
Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374;
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(4) Charge 4, driving without a valid driving licence,
C contrary to section 42(1) (and?) (4) of the Road Traffic C
Ordinance, Cap 374;
D D
E (5) Charge 5, using a motor vehicle without third party E
insurance, contrary to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of Motor
F F
Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap
G 272; G
H H
(6) Charge 6, failing to stop after incident, contrary to
I section 56(1)(b) and (5) of Road Traffic Ordinance, I
Cap 374;
J J
K (7) Charge 7, failing to report an incident, contrary to K
section 56(2A) and (6) of Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap
L L
374;
M M
(8) Charge 8, making false report, contrary to section
N N
64(a), Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232;
O O
(9) Charge 9, escape from lawful custody, contrary to
P P
common law and punishable under section 101I of
Q Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221; Q
R R
(10) Charge 10, possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to
S section 8(1)(a) and (2) of Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, S
Cap 134.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Summary of facts
C C
Charge 1
D D
E 2. On 19 December 2016 the defendant stole PW1’s private car, E
KM8879, which was parked in a street in Tuen Mun, with the car key
F F
inserted in the ignition without locking the door. PW1’s friends posted the
G incident on Facebook. G
H H
Careless driving
I I
3. At the material time, PW2 was driving along Tuen Mun and
J J
saw the stolen vehicle being driven by the defendant. As PW2 had seen
K the Facebook message before, he noticed that beneath the number plate of K
“GT426” there were other characters, that was “KM”.
L L
M 4. When approaching a traffic light, PW4 stopped his vehicle in M
front of the red light. PW2 stopped behind him. The defendant suddenly
N N
cut into their lane. The left-front part of the stolen vehicle collided with
O the right-back part of PW4’s vehicle and also PW2’s right-front bumper. O
P P
5. PW2 and his passenger, PW3, went up to the defendant, but
Q could not open the car door. PW3 used his elbow to break the car window Q
of the driver’s seat. The defendant kicked open the car door and escaped
R R
after some struggle with PW2 and 3.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
6. The police arrived and found a card-holder containing
C different cards, including the defendant’s ID card, mobile phone and other C
personal items which did not belong to PW1.
D D
E 7. Transport Department confirmed that the defendant was not a E
holder of any driving licence, while the insurance company also confirmed
F F
that the defendant was not covered by third party insurance.
G G
False police report, Charge 8
H H
I 8. On the same day at about 8.16 pm, the defendant called “999” I
and reported that he had been robbed by three men and they hit him with a
J J
rod. He ran away, leaving his jacket and mobile phone behind. During the
K enquiry, the police found out that the items in the stolen vehicle belonged K
to the defendant. He was arrested for an offence of misleading a police
L L
officer.
M M
Taking conveyancing without authorities and driving without third party
N N
insurance
O O
9. Under caution, the defendant said that he did not have a
P P
driving licence. He took a minibus to Tsuen Wan and did not drive any
Q car. Q
R R
The escape
S S
10. On 4 January 2017, PW3 identified that the defendant being
T T
the driver of the stolen vehicle. During the remand in the temporary cell,
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
the defendant was allowed to make a phone call at his request. He was
C taken to the formal male cell, when the police opened the gate to the cell, C
the defendant, who was not handcuffed at that time, ran away.
D D
E 11. He jumped over the front desk, pushed the computer monitor E
down onto the floor, ran downstairs to the lobby, ran across the road into
F F
the West Rail Station, then to Tuen Mun Town Park. Two policemen
G chased after him. He was found hiding at the bushes on the slope. He was G
arrested for escaping from lawful custody.
H H
I Possession of dangerous drugs I
J J
12. During a search on the defendant on the same day, it was
K found that his underpants were lowered to below his knees. Dangerous K
drugs were found in his underpants. Under caution, he said that he picked
L L
up the bags of dangerous drugs from the temporary cell inside the police
M station and he hid it in his underpants. M
N N
Previous conviction
O O
13. The defendant had four previous: two convictions of theft in
P P
2009; two convictions of robbery in 2012. He received a total sentence of
Q 6 years. Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
14. He is now 23, came from Pakistan in 1993. In September
T T
2016 he married and his wife is now living in Pakistan. Before the arrest,
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
he lived with his family in Hong Kong. He worked as a delivery worker
C with a monthly earnings of $13,000. C
D D
15. As to Charge 1, he came across PW1’s vehicle in the street
E and it was out of fun that he committed the offence. He said he would not E
touch any vehicle in the future.
F F
G 16. The accident occurred because he was nervous at the material G
time when he drove PW1’s car. He lied to the police because he took some
H H
bad advice from his friends to make a false report to the police.
I I
17. He knows now he is wrong, but the offences were not pre-
J J
meditated or planned. He is now remorseful. He has 3,000 to 4,000 dollars
K at home but could not get in touch with any of his family members, as he K
wished to compensate the three vehicle-owners.
L L
M Sentence M
Theft of vehicle
N N
O 18. PW1 parked his car in the street without locking the car door O
and leaving the car key in the ignition. The defendant then committed the
P P
careless driving offences, causing damage to PW1’s car. The stolen
Q vehicle was worth about $80,000. Q
R R
19. There are no guidelines for offences of theft of vehicle. The
S court takes a serious view that a deterrent sentence is required. In HKSAR S
v Cheng Chung Ming, CACC 356/2000, the court said this: -
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B “Cases involving the theft or handling of motor cars are very B
serious offences and inevitably call for immediate custodial
C sentences of considerable length. This is absolutely necessary C
to act as a deterrent to a prevalent crime.”
D D
20. The court also upheld a starting point of 3 years’
E imprisonment for any offence of handling of a motor vehicle. E
F F
21. The defendant was an opportunistic handler.
G G
22. In HKSAR v Li Cheung Yin & Ors, CACC 313/2011, where
H H
the court held a 3-year starting point was appropriate for theft of a vehicle.
I I
J
23. I accept that the defendant was an opportunistic thief. He took J
the car when the door was unlocked and the car key was in the ignition.
K K
However, the car was damaged when the defendant cut into PW2 and 4’s
L lane carelessly. L
M M
24. The cost of repair of KM8879 was $8,000. He was not in a
N position to compensate PW1. N
O O
25. Taking into account that the stolen vehicle was worth about
P $80,000, the damage to the vehicle was not serious (at least PW1 got it P
repaired), the defendant acted alone, I am satisfied that the starting point
Q Q
after trial is 3 years. Giving the defendant one-third discount, it comes
R down to 2 years. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
Charge 2 to 7
C C
26. The defendant used another number plate, GT426, to cover
D D
the original stolen vehicle. The whole purpose was to prevent the police
E or PW1 to track down the whereabouts of KM8879. E
F F
27. On the other hand, the defendant did not have a driving
G licence and driving without third party insurance placed all the road users G
at risk. When there are damages or personal injuries occurring in a car
H H
accident, the road users are not covered by insurance. This is exactly what
I happened here, when the defendant is not in a position to compensate the I
victims.
J J
K 28. His driving manner was bad. PW2 stopped his vehicle behind K
PW4. Both vehicles were stationary in front of the traffic light. There was
L L
not enough space for the defendant to move in. It was not only bad driving
M manner; it was also bad judgment as well. He ran away from the scene. M
This was an irresponsible attitude. When other drivers got off their cars
N N
and went up to him, all he did was to avoid them.
O O
29. The defence refer me to a case of HKSAR v Ejiobu Lazarus,
P P
HCMA 334/2016. At paragraph 12 of the judgment, another case, HKSAR
Q v Ngan Tin Hung, HCMA 647/2011, was also quoted in relation to driving Q
without driving licence and without third party insurance.
R R
S 30. Each case depended on its own facts. There is no tariff for S
this type of offences.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
31. Having said that, I still have regard to maximum sentence on
C each charge. C
D D
32. Charge 2 is a serious offence, carries a heavy maximum
E sentence of 3 years and a fine of $10,000. For the reasons stated above, I E
adopt a starting point of 12 months, reduced to 8 months for his guilty plea.
F F
G 33. Charge 3 is the careless driving offence. Taking into account G
that it was a stolen vehicle, further aggravated by pre-meditation of using
H H
a false number plate without valid driving licence and third party insurance,
I bad driving manner and judgment, I am satisfied that a starting point of 3 I
months is appropriate. I reduce to 2 months because of his guilty plea.
J J
K 34. Charge 4, maximum sentence for a first offender for driving K
without a valid driving licence is 3 months and $5,000. I adopt a starting
L L
point of 4½ weeks, reduced to 3 weeks.
M M
35. Charge 5 is the offence of without third party insurance.
N N
Maximum sentence is $10,000 and 12 months, with a disqualification order
O between 12 to 36 months unless there is a special reason for not making O
such an order. The defence do not pursue on the point of special reason. I
P P
therefore order 24 months of disqualification for not driving any type of
Q vehicle from the date of conviction. I also consider that 4½ months is Q
appropriate in the present case; discounts to 3 months.
R R
S 36. Charge 6, failing to stop, is a serious offence. A maximum S
sentence is $10,000 and 12 months. I take 4½ months as the starting point.
T T
Granting one-third discount, it comes down to 3 months.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 37. Charge 7 is an offence for failing to report, a maximum C
sentence of $15,000 and 6 months. I consider that 3 months is appropriate
D D
in the present case. I also reduce the sentence to 2 months to reflect his
E guilty plea. E
F F
38. Taking into account of the totality principle, I order all the
G sentences in Charge 2 to 7 be run concurrently. That is a sentence of 8 G
months. I further order that 4 months be run consecutively to Charge 1.
H H
For Charge 1 to 7, the total sentence is now 2 years 4 months.
I I
Charge 8, making false report
J J
K 39. Clearly, after the car accident, the defendant left all his K
belongings in the car, including his ID card, his jacket and his mobile
L L
phone. The defendant could not get back his belongings and he lied to the
M police that he was robbed by three men. M
N N
40. But what he did not realize was that the police was
O investigating into the car accident offence, when one of the drivers O
disappeared. The car was a stolen vehicle. He drove the car without a
P P
driving licence, without third party insurance, used another car’s number
Q plate to cover up the original number plate, and hit the other two cars when Q
he changed lane. He further lied to the police to cover his misdeeds.
R R
S 41. One cannot dispute that this is a bad case of misleading a S
police officer. He wasted the police’s manpower.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
42. Section 64(a) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, carries
C a maximum sentence of 6 months and a fine of $1,000. C
D D
43. It is clear that a fine is inappropriate in the present case.
E Anyone commits a serious offence such as theft of vehicle then followed E
by a series of crime cannot expect a light sentence. I consider a proper
F F
sentence should be 3 months, reduced to 2 months, to reflect his guilty plea.
G I order 1 month be run consecutively to Charge 1. The total sentence is G
now 2 years 5 months.
H H
I 44. Charge 9 and 10 were incidents that took place on 4 January I
2017.
J J
K Charge 9, escape from lawful custody K
L L
45. The defendant made excuses to request a phone call so that he
M had an opportunity to be taken out from the temporary cell. At that time M
he was not handcuffed. Looking at the photos provided by the prosecution,
N N
it was just a bare cell with a bench for sitting. This was a calculated move
O by the defendant. He took the opportunity to run away from the police O
station.
P P
Q 46. By reference to the photos, it was quite a distance from the Q
police station to where he was rearrested in the Tuen Mun Park. According
R R
to Sentencing in Hong Kong (2015), seventh edition, page 638, it states
S that the sentence tends to be in the range of 3 to 12 months. S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
47. Taking into account that it was a calculated move by the
C defendant and he was soon rearrested not too far away from the police C
station, I consider a starting point of 6 months is appropriate to reflect the
D D
gravity of the offence. One-third discount, the sentence is reduced to 4
E months. E
F F
10th charge
G G
48. This is a charge of simple possession - 0.89 grammes of a
H H
powder containing cocaine - and there is authority to say that usual
I sentence is in the range of 12 to 18 months. In view of the quantity of the I
drug offence, I take 12 months as the starting point, reduce to 8 months.
J J
K 49. As to Charge 9 and 10, I order both sentences to run K
concurrently, out of which 4 months to run consecutively to Charge 1.
L L
M 50. The final sentence is 2 years 9 months. M
N N
51. Conclusion:-
O O
(1) Charge 1: 2 years;
P P
(2) Charge 2: 8 months;
Q (3) Charge 3: 2 months; Q
(4) Charge 4: 3 weeks;
R R
(5) Charge 5: 3 months;
S 24 months’ disqualification order for driving any S
vehicle from the date of conviction;
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
(6) Charge 6: 3 months;
C (7) Charge 7: 2 months; C
D D
Charge 2 to 7: Sentences to run concurrently;
E 4 months to run consecutively to E
Charge 1;
F F
G (8) Charge 8: 2 months; G
1 month to run consecutively to Charge 1;
H H
I (9) Charge 9: 4 months; I
(10) Charge 10: 8 months;
J J
Both charges to run concurrently;
K 4 months to run consecutively to Charge 1. K
L L
52. Total sentence: 2 years 9 months.
M M
N N
O O
( M Chow )
P P
Deputy District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V