區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge K K Leung11/12/2025[2025] HKDC 2118
DCCC99/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 99/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2118 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 99 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I GUAN Xinghua (D2) I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 12 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Stephanie Kong, Public Prosecutor of Department of
M Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Simon Young, instructed by Messrs W K To & Co
N N
Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd
O defendant (D2) O
Offence: [2] Handling stolen goods (處理贓物罪) (against D2)
P P
Q Q
----------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. There are two defendants (D1 - D2) in this case. This sentence
C only deals with D2. D2 pleaded guilty to the second charge of handling C
1 th
stolen goods . The particulars of the charge stated that on or about the 9
D D
day of September 2024, in Hong Kong, D2 dishonestly assisted in the
E retention of certain stolen goods, namely 8 discs and 1 vinyl record player, E
by or for the benefit of another, or dishonestly arranged so to do, knowing
F F
or believing the same to be stolen goods.
G G
Summary of Facts
H H
I 2. Mr LEUNG Wai-keung (‘PW1’) took over Room B, 1st Floor, I
Yan Fat Building, Nos. 39-41 Shek Kip Mei Street, Sham Shui Po,
J J
Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘the Flat’) from his late mother in June 2022. The
K Flat was used mainly to store the belongings of PW1’s mother and was K
otherwise vacant since then.
L L
M 3. In mid-August 2024, PW1 went into the Flat for an inspection M
and found that things there were in order. PW1 then made sure that all
N N
windows and the wooden front door were locked before leaving. The metal
O gate outside the wooden front door to the Flat was never locked as the lock O
was faulty.
P P
Q 4. On 6 September 2024, PW1 returned to the Flat and found that Q
the wooden front door could not be pushed open. Neither the metal gate
R R
nor the wooden front door had any signs of tampering. PW1 then arranged
S for a locksmith to open the wooden front door. Upon entering the Flat, S
T T
1
Contrary to section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
PW1 found that the Flat had been ransacked, each of the windows had been
C opened, and one of the windows had fallen off its frame and landed on an C
air conditioner compressor outside the Flat. PW1 reported the case to
D D
police.
E E
5. PW1 found 8 disc and a vinyl record player were missing.
F F
G D2 G
H H
6. On 9 September 2024 at 4 pm, D2 was spotted coming out
I from a metal door to the back alley at No. 56 Fuk Wah Street (‘Storeroom I
2’). Upon seeing the police, D2 immediately went back inside Storeroom
J J
2 behind the said metal door. Upon enquiry, D2 explained that he came to
K Storeroom 2 to see D1. Storeroom 2 was searched with D2’s consent. 8 K
discs with 7 discs covers and 1 vinyl record player were found (‘Storeroom
L L
2 Items’).
M M
7. Storeroom 2 Items are missing properties of PW1.
N N
O 8. D2 was arrested and cautioned, he admitted that he knew the O
Storeroom 2 Items were taken from a burglary. In a subsequent video
P P
recorded interview, D2 admitted: -
Q Q
(1) he would often hangout at Storeroom 2 which is owned
R R
by D1;
S (2) Storeroom 2 is not normally locked and he would go in S
by pushing open the door;
T T
(3) he knew that the discs and turntable were stolen; and
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(4) a week ago, he was asked to keep watch of the discs and
C turntable and not let them be taken by anyone. C
D D
Criminal Record and Background of the Defendant
E E
9. D2 had been sentenced by court on 2 occasions. In 2019, he
F F
was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months for
G managing a gambling establishment, and in 2021 he was sentenced to a fine G
of $1,000 for gambling in a gambling establishment.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
10. D2 is now aged 31. He came to Hong Kong when he was 18
K years old. He was educated up to grade 10 in the Mainland. He is married K
with two children, currently age 7 and 8. D2 earned his living alongside his
L L
father in the field of interior renovation, where he earned a daily wage of
M $1,500. M
N N
11. In mitigation, Mr Young referred the court to the cases of:
O O
(a) R v Webbe (Bernard) [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 (CA).
P P
This case provides guidance on the appropriate
Q approach to sentencing in matters involving the Q
handling of stolen goods and outlines factors that may
R R
be considered in assessing the seriousness of the offence
S and the degree of culpability of the defendant. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(b) HKSAR v Xiao Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063 (CA). D, a
C 21-year-old male from Mainland China, handled stolen C
goods by pawning a stolen watch in Mongkok for
D D
$3,500, only six hours after the domestic burglary
E during which the watch was stolen. D told the police he E
had asked his friend, Lee, to lend him some money; Lee
F F
then asked him to pawn the watch, and, having done so,
G Lee gave D $1,000 from the proceeds. D had a G
“formidable criminal record in Hong Kong”. After trial,
H H
the District Court judge applied a starting point of 3
I years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held this I
starting point was manifestly excessive and one of 18
J J
months was more appropriate. The Court noted that the
K burglary was not accompanied by threats of violence or K
with the assistance of dangerous weapons, and “there
L L
was nothing to show that the applicant had any direct
M knowledge of the means by which the watch had been M
stolen; that the value of the stolen goods was not
N N
especially high, his profit being, on his account, limited
O to $1,000; and that the applicant revealed a considerable O
lack of sophistication in his method of converting the
P P
stolen watch into a sum of money”.
Q Q
(c) HKSAR v Raman Kumar [2018] HKCA 122. D plead
R R
guilty to burglary and handling stolen goods, two
S offences unrelated to each other. When arrested at his S
home for the burglary, police found D in possession of
T T
a stolen mobile phone with a SIM card, items which
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
were stolen earlier in the day from someone sitting on a
C public bench. The value of the mobile phone was C
$5,500. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point
D D
sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for the handling
E stolen goods offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed E
the sentence appeal and held that “the judge’s approach
F F
to stipulating the appropriate starting point to be taken
G for sentence on the applicant for the burglary and G
handling stolen goods and the sentences that she
H H
imposed was entirely appropriate.”
I I
(d) HKSAR v Tai Wai Yin [2024] HKDC 673. D pleaded
J J
guilty to six charges: 1 of handling a stolen credit card
K and 5 of obtaining property by deception by using the K
stolen card 5 times. The victim lost his wallet with his
L L
Amex credit card. The stolen credit card was given to
M D by a friend who told her to use it. On the same day M
the wallet was lost and the next day, D used the credit
N N
card to purchase goods valued at $5,652.50. The Court
O adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment for O
the handling stolen goods offence.
P P
Q 12. Mr Young submitted that only the fourth factor in Webbe, of Q
the goods being derived from a domestic burglary, is engaged. Mr Young
R R
further submitted that the premises, however, was unoccupied at the time
S of the burglary as the owner was using the flat only to store his mother’s S
belonging. There is no evidence D2 was at all involved in the burglary or
T T
knew of its circumstances. The authorities referred to in above involved
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
handling offences which were committed in closer proximity to the primary
C offence (same day) and the stolen objects were arguably more valuable. C
D D
13. Further, it was submitted that it was a one-off case. The only
E reason why D2 was involved is because of his tendency to “hangout” at the E
storeroom and the request by the D1 to keep watch over the stolen items.
F F
The total value of the items were not substantial and likely less than
G HK$5,000. As such, D2’s culpability for his offence lies at the low end of G
the spectrum of gravity.
H H
I 14. Finally, as D2 has already served 7 months and 6 days of pre- I
trial custody, the defence asked the court to adopt a sentence of
J J
imprisonment which could allow him to be immediately released. Such a
K result would be conducive to D2’s rehabilitation as it would allow him to K
continue to work in renovation job without disruption.
L L
M Sentence M
N N
15. The maximum penalty for handling stolen goods is 14 years’
O imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. O
P P
16. In R v Chan Wing Kwan and another CACC 121/1985:
Q Q
“An examination of a number of other cases of handling of stolen
goods shows that the normal bracket of sentences runs between 2
R R
and 4 years. Similarly, other decisions suggest that the handler
of stolen goods can normally expect a lesser sentence than those
S who are convicted of the substantive offence of burglary of the S
goods which were subsequently handled.”
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. In R v Bernard Webbe & Others [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22,
C the Court of Appeal identified factors that would be regarded C
as aggravating. The nine aggravating factors identified in Webbe are
D D
intended to provide assistance to the court in gauging the level of
E seriousness of the handler’s activities, namely: E
F F
(1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence
G (closeness may be geographical, arising from G
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
H H
committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated
I or encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or, I
soon after, provided a safe haven or route for
J J
disposal).
K (2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence. K
(3) High value of the goods to the loser, including
L L
sentimental value.
M (4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a M
domestic burglary.
N N
(5) Sophistication in relation to the handling.
O (6) A high level of profit made or expected by the O
handler.
P P
(7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for
Q stolen goods. Q
(8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler
R R
over others, for example, an adult commissioning
S criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer S
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their
T T
habit.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
(9) As is statutorily provided by s.151(2) of the Powers
C of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the C
commissions of an offence while on bail.
D D
E 18. Webbe also identified factors that might mitigate the E
offence: namely, low monetary value of the goods, the fact that the offence
F F
was a one-off offence, committed by an otherwise honest defendant, the
G fact that there is little or no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of G
voluntary restitution to the victim. Other factors to be taken into account
H H
include personal mitigation, ready cooperation with the police, previous
I convictions, especially for offences of dishonesty and, as statutorily I
provided by s.151(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
J J
2000, a timely plea of guilty.
K K
19. As for the aggravating factor, the fourth factor in Webbe,
L L
namely, the fact that the goods were proceeds of a domestic burglary,
M applies in this case. D2 admitted that he knew the Storeroom 2 Items were M
taken from a burglary. In this case of handling stolen goods showed, the
N N
items were proceeds and result from a domestic-premises burglary. It was
O found that the premises had been ransacked and one of the windows had O
fallen off its frame. The items stolen, i.e. Storeroom 2 Items, were
P P
recovered from D2 in the storeroom of which D2 was asked to keep watch
Q of and he had done so for a week at time of the arrest. Q
R R
20. I have considered the factor outlined by Webbe on the subject
S of closeness to the primary offence: S
T “One important issue is whether the handler has had advance T
knowledge of the original offence, or has directly or indirectly
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B made known his willingness to receive the proceeds of the B
original offence, as compared with a handler who has had no
C connection with the original offence but who has dishonestly C
accepted the stolen goods at an undervalue.”
D D
21. Those comments are equally applicable to our legislation in
E Hong Kong: see HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 (para 59). E
F F
22. As for the mitigating factor, it is accepted that there is no
G evidence D2 was involved in the burglary. The offence seemed to be a one- G
off offence. D2 was cooperative with the police.
H H
I I
23. In the present case of D2, the concerned stolen goods were 8
J
discs and 1 vinyl record player. The value of the goods were less than J
$5,000, which was agreed by the Prosecutions. In Cheng Chi Wai, the
K K
Court of Appeal noted that the value of the goods included also their
L sentimental value. In the present case, the Flat was used mainly to store the L
belongings of PW1’s late mother.
M M
N 24. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D2 was N
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D2, the mitigation
O O
submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, I adopt a starting
P point of 12 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D2’s P
guilty plea, the sentence is 8 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R 25. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further R
reduction of sentence.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Conclusion
C C
26. The sentence of D2 is 8 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
G ( K K Leung ) G
Deputy District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 99/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2118 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 99 OF 2025
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I GUAN Xinghua (D2) I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge K K Leung K
Date: 12 December 2025
L L
Present: Ms Stephanie Kong, Public Prosecutor of Department of
M Justice, for HKSAR M
Mr Simon Young, instructed by Messrs W K To & Co
N N
Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd
O defendant (D2) O
Offence: [2] Handling stolen goods (處理贓物罪) (against D2)
P P
Q Q
----------------------------------------
R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. There are two defendants (D1 - D2) in this case. This sentence
C only deals with D2. D2 pleaded guilty to the second charge of handling C
1 th
stolen goods . The particulars of the charge stated that on or about the 9
D D
day of September 2024, in Hong Kong, D2 dishonestly assisted in the
E retention of certain stolen goods, namely 8 discs and 1 vinyl record player, E
by or for the benefit of another, or dishonestly arranged so to do, knowing
F F
or believing the same to be stolen goods.
G G
Summary of Facts
H H
I 2. Mr LEUNG Wai-keung (‘PW1’) took over Room B, 1st Floor, I
Yan Fat Building, Nos. 39-41 Shek Kip Mei Street, Sham Shui Po,
J J
Kowloon, Hong Kong (‘the Flat’) from his late mother in June 2022. The
K Flat was used mainly to store the belongings of PW1’s mother and was K
otherwise vacant since then.
L L
M 3. In mid-August 2024, PW1 went into the Flat for an inspection M
and found that things there were in order. PW1 then made sure that all
N N
windows and the wooden front door were locked before leaving. The metal
O gate outside the wooden front door to the Flat was never locked as the lock O
was faulty.
P P
Q 4. On 6 September 2024, PW1 returned to the Flat and found that Q
the wooden front door could not be pushed open. Neither the metal gate
R R
nor the wooden front door had any signs of tampering. PW1 then arranged
S for a locksmith to open the wooden front door. Upon entering the Flat, S
T T
1
Contrary to section 24(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
PW1 found that the Flat had been ransacked, each of the windows had been
C opened, and one of the windows had fallen off its frame and landed on an C
air conditioner compressor outside the Flat. PW1 reported the case to
D D
police.
E E
5. PW1 found 8 disc and a vinyl record player were missing.
F F
G D2 G
H H
6. On 9 September 2024 at 4 pm, D2 was spotted coming out
I from a metal door to the back alley at No. 56 Fuk Wah Street (‘Storeroom I
2’). Upon seeing the police, D2 immediately went back inside Storeroom
J J
2 behind the said metal door. Upon enquiry, D2 explained that he came to
K Storeroom 2 to see D1. Storeroom 2 was searched with D2’s consent. 8 K
discs with 7 discs covers and 1 vinyl record player were found (‘Storeroom
L L
2 Items’).
M M
7. Storeroom 2 Items are missing properties of PW1.
N N
O 8. D2 was arrested and cautioned, he admitted that he knew the O
Storeroom 2 Items were taken from a burglary. In a subsequent video
P P
recorded interview, D2 admitted: -
Q Q
(1) he would often hangout at Storeroom 2 which is owned
R R
by D1;
S (2) Storeroom 2 is not normally locked and he would go in S
by pushing open the door;
T T
(3) he knew that the discs and turntable were stolen; and
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(4) a week ago, he was asked to keep watch of the discs and
C turntable and not let them be taken by anyone. C
D D
Criminal Record and Background of the Defendant
E E
9. D2 had been sentenced by court on 2 occasions. In 2019, he
F F
was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months for
G managing a gambling establishment, and in 2021 he was sentenced to a fine G
of $1,000 for gambling in a gambling establishment.
H H
I Mitigation I
J J
10. D2 is now aged 31. He came to Hong Kong when he was 18
K years old. He was educated up to grade 10 in the Mainland. He is married K
with two children, currently age 7 and 8. D2 earned his living alongside his
L L
father in the field of interior renovation, where he earned a daily wage of
M $1,500. M
N N
11. In mitigation, Mr Young referred the court to the cases of:
O O
(a) R v Webbe (Bernard) [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 (CA).
P P
This case provides guidance on the appropriate
Q approach to sentencing in matters involving the Q
handling of stolen goods and outlines factors that may
R R
be considered in assessing the seriousness of the offence
S and the degree of culpability of the defendant. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(b) HKSAR v Xiao Wei [2003] 3 HKLRD 1063 (CA). D, a
C 21-year-old male from Mainland China, handled stolen C
goods by pawning a stolen watch in Mongkok for
D D
$3,500, only six hours after the domestic burglary
E during which the watch was stolen. D told the police he E
had asked his friend, Lee, to lend him some money; Lee
F F
then asked him to pawn the watch, and, having done so,
G Lee gave D $1,000 from the proceeds. D had a G
“formidable criminal record in Hong Kong”. After trial,
H H
the District Court judge applied a starting point of 3
I years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held this I
starting point was manifestly excessive and one of 18
J J
months was more appropriate. The Court noted that the
K burglary was not accompanied by threats of violence or K
with the assistance of dangerous weapons, and “there
L L
was nothing to show that the applicant had any direct
M knowledge of the means by which the watch had been M
stolen; that the value of the stolen goods was not
N N
especially high, his profit being, on his account, limited
O to $1,000; and that the applicant revealed a considerable O
lack of sophistication in his method of converting the
P P
stolen watch into a sum of money”.
Q Q
(c) HKSAR v Raman Kumar [2018] HKCA 122. D plead
R R
guilty to burglary and handling stolen goods, two
S offences unrelated to each other. When arrested at his S
home for the burglary, police found D in possession of
T T
a stolen mobile phone with a SIM card, items which
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
were stolen earlier in the day from someone sitting on a
C public bench. The value of the mobile phone was C
$5,500. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point
D D
sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for the handling
E stolen goods offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed E
the sentence appeal and held that “the judge’s approach
F F
to stipulating the appropriate starting point to be taken
G for sentence on the applicant for the burglary and G
handling stolen goods and the sentences that she
H H
imposed was entirely appropriate.”
I I
(d) HKSAR v Tai Wai Yin [2024] HKDC 673. D pleaded
J J
guilty to six charges: 1 of handling a stolen credit card
K and 5 of obtaining property by deception by using the K
stolen card 5 times. The victim lost his wallet with his
L L
Amex credit card. The stolen credit card was given to
M D by a friend who told her to use it. On the same day M
the wallet was lost and the next day, D used the credit
N N
card to purchase goods valued at $5,652.50. The Court
O adopted a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment for O
the handling stolen goods offence.
P P
Q 12. Mr Young submitted that only the fourth factor in Webbe, of Q
the goods being derived from a domestic burglary, is engaged. Mr Young
R R
further submitted that the premises, however, was unoccupied at the time
S of the burglary as the owner was using the flat only to store his mother’s S
belonging. There is no evidence D2 was at all involved in the burglary or
T T
knew of its circumstances. The authorities referred to in above involved
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
handling offences which were committed in closer proximity to the primary
C offence (same day) and the stolen objects were arguably more valuable. C
D D
13. Further, it was submitted that it was a one-off case. The only
E reason why D2 was involved is because of his tendency to “hangout” at the E
storeroom and the request by the D1 to keep watch over the stolen items.
F F
The total value of the items were not substantial and likely less than
G HK$5,000. As such, D2’s culpability for his offence lies at the low end of G
the spectrum of gravity.
H H
I 14. Finally, as D2 has already served 7 months and 6 days of pre- I
trial custody, the defence asked the court to adopt a sentence of
J J
imprisonment which could allow him to be immediately released. Such a
K result would be conducive to D2’s rehabilitation as it would allow him to K
continue to work in renovation job without disruption.
L L
M Sentence M
N N
15. The maximum penalty for handling stolen goods is 14 years’
O imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for this offence. O
P P
16. In R v Chan Wing Kwan and another CACC 121/1985:
Q Q
“An examination of a number of other cases of handling of stolen
goods shows that the normal bracket of sentences runs between 2
R R
and 4 years. Similarly, other decisions suggest that the handler
of stolen goods can normally expect a lesser sentence than those
S who are convicted of the substantive offence of burglary of the S
goods which were subsequently handled.”
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
17. In R v Bernard Webbe & Others [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22,
C the Court of Appeal identified factors that would be regarded C
as aggravating. The nine aggravating factors identified in Webbe are
D D
intended to provide assistance to the court in gauging the level of
E seriousness of the handler’s activities, namely: E
F F
(1) The closeness of the handler to the primary offence
G (closeness may be geographical, arising from G
presence at or near the primary offence when it was
H H
committed, or temporal, where the handler instigated
I or encouraged the primary offence beforehand, or, I
soon after, provided a safe haven or route for
J J
disposal).
K (2) Particular seriousness in the primary offence. K
(3) High value of the goods to the loser, including
L L
sentimental value.
M (4) The fact that the goods were the proceeds of a M
domestic burglary.
N N
(5) Sophistication in relation to the handling.
O (6) A high level of profit made or expected by the O
handler.
P P
(7) The provision by the handler of a regular outlet for
Q stolen goods. Q
(8) Threats of violence or abuse of power by the handler
R R
over others, for example, an adult commissioning
S criminal activity by children, or a drug dealer S
pressurising addicts to steal in order to pay for their
T T
habit.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
(9) As is statutorily provided by s.151(2) of the Powers
C of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the C
commissions of an offence while on bail.
D D
E 18. Webbe also identified factors that might mitigate the E
offence: namely, low monetary value of the goods, the fact that the offence
F F
was a one-off offence, committed by an otherwise honest defendant, the
G fact that there is little or no benefit to the defendant, and the fact of G
voluntary restitution to the victim. Other factors to be taken into account
H H
include personal mitigation, ready cooperation with the police, previous
I convictions, especially for offences of dishonesty and, as statutorily I
provided by s.151(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
J J
2000, a timely plea of guilty.
K K
19. As for the aggravating factor, the fourth factor in Webbe,
L L
namely, the fact that the goods were proceeds of a domestic burglary,
M applies in this case. D2 admitted that he knew the Storeroom 2 Items were M
taken from a burglary. In this case of handling stolen goods showed, the
N N
items were proceeds and result from a domestic-premises burglary. It was
O found that the premises had been ransacked and one of the windows had O
fallen off its frame. The items stolen, i.e. Storeroom 2 Items, were
P P
recovered from D2 in the storeroom of which D2 was asked to keep watch
Q of and he had done so for a week at time of the arrest. Q
R R
20. I have considered the factor outlined by Webbe on the subject
S of closeness to the primary offence: S
T “One important issue is whether the handler has had advance T
knowledge of the original offence, or has directly or indirectly
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B made known his willingness to receive the proceeds of the B
original offence, as compared with a handler who has had no
C connection with the original offence but who has dishonestly C
accepted the stolen goods at an undervalue.”
D D
21. Those comments are equally applicable to our legislation in
E Hong Kong: see HKSAR v Cheng Chi Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 360 (para 59). E
F F
22. As for the mitigating factor, it is accepted that there is no
G evidence D2 was involved in the burglary. The offence seemed to be a one- G
off offence. D2 was cooperative with the police.
H H
I I
23. In the present case of D2, the concerned stolen goods were 8
J
discs and 1 vinyl record player. The value of the goods were less than J
$5,000, which was agreed by the Prosecutions. In Cheng Chi Wai, the
K K
Court of Appeal noted that the value of the goods included also their
L sentimental value. In the present case, the Flat was used mainly to store the L
belongings of PW1’s late mother.
M M
N 24. Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D2 was N
facing, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D2, the mitigation
O O
submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, I adopt a starting
P point of 12 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D2’s P
guilty plea, the sentence is 8 months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R 25. There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further R
reduction of sentence.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Conclusion
C C
26. The sentence of D2 is 8 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
G ( K K Leung ) G
Deputy District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V