HKSAR v. TSE WING KEUNG

DCCC1227/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1227 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant enters a plea of guilty to one charge of “Burglary”, brought against him under section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Facts

2.  The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows. 

3.  At the material time the beverage section of Blue House Restaurant at Stone Nullah Lane, Wan Chai, was contracted out to Mr C C Wong.  The defendant was in Mr Wong’s employ and was provided with the keys to enter the restaurant for work purpose.

4.  The CCTV surveillance camera installed at the restaurant captured the defendant walking towards the rear exit at 2.14 am on 29 September 2011.  For the 20-odd minutes that followed, images of a person moving about inside the restaurant were seen.  At 3.04 am, the defendant was seen leaving the restaurant. 

5.  Next morning, the restaurant owner found missing from the drawer of the cashier $4,000 and two plastic boxes, and that the defendant could not be reached.  A report was therefore made to the police. 

6.  On 18 October 2011, the police arrested the defendant.  Upon initial caution, he denied connection with the case, but he owned up in a subsequent interview, saying he took $2,000 from the drawer which he spent with his girlfriend on the Mainland.

Conviction

7.  By entering a guilty plea to the charge, the defendant admits intending to steal the moment he entered the restaurant as a trespasser and that he did steal $2,000 and the boxes from the drawer.  The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. 

8.  The defendant has had five criminal records prior to his current conviction, none of which is similar to the present offence.  

Mitigation

9.  In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration. 

10.  The defendant is 48 years old, married with no offspring.  He used to live with his wife on the Mainland, but the wife deserted the family many years ago.  

11.  The defendant has a regular job as a bartender. 

12.  Counsel submits that he has committed the present offence due to drunkenness at the time; no property was damaged, and no equipment was used in the commission of the crime. 

13.  The court is urged to be as lenient to the defendant as possible. 

Discussion

14.  Hong Kong gives high priority, as it is in the public interest to do so, to the protection of commercial premises from unauthorised invasion.  Burglary committed at those premises causes disruption of business and inconvenience to the victimised operators.  

15.  Prevalence of this offence would give Hong Kong, an international city of commerce, a bad name.  Unfortunately, burglary has become all too common; a deterrent sentence is called for.  

16.  The Court of Appeal has provided a sentence guideline of two years and six months’ imprisonment for burglary committed in non-residential premises. 

17.  In the context of this case, there is an element of breach of trust arising from the circumstance that the defendant was given the keys to the premises.  The starting point should therefore be enhanced by three months.

18.  Apart from his guilty plea, nothing in the defendant’s personal and family background would warrant further discount in sentence. 

19.  The court approaches sentence in this case on the basis that the defendant had stolen only $2,000 rather than $4,000.

Conclusion

20.  In the result, the court would adopt a starting point of two years nine months, which is reduced by one-third on account of the defendant’s guilty plea, to one of 22 months’ imprisonment. 

Order

21.  The defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 22 months.