HKSAR v. LI CHUN PONG

DCCC 376/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 376 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted burglary.

2.  The premises concerned are premises Room 229 in the Sin Sam House in the Lung Hang Estate in Sha Tin.  The residents of that particular flat are a Miss Chow who is aged 59 and a Mr Ho who is aged 30. They left the premises on the morning of 25 March and secured and locked the iron gate. 

3.  In the afternoon of that day, at about 3.23 pm, an officer was on patrol on the 3rd floor of Sin Sam House.  The premises have a courtyard design, and he was able to see down to the 2nd floor corridor.  The officer was able to observe the defendant knocking on the door of Room 229 through the iron gate.  The defendant was seen to tamper with the iron gate and door with an object, and the door of the room opened.

4.  About a minute later, the defendant returned to the room, took out an object, touched the iron gate of the room and then left. The officer noticed that the defendant then used a mobile phone.  The officer then intercepted the defendant and searched him and discovered that he had two keys with Chinese characters and English characters engraved thereon and an eyebrow clipper.  The officer found that one of those keys was capable of unlocking the door of Room 229. 

5.  And the defendant immediately at the scene admitted that he had gone there intending to burgle the premises, and that he picked up the keys and the clamp outside the premises.

6.  The defendant was also found to be in possession of three mobile phones. 

7.  The defendant was later interviewed and the interview was video-recorded.  The defendant told the police that an acquaintance of his whom he referred to as “Ah Keung” informed the defendant that keys could be picked up near a refuse collection point at Lung Hang Estate for stealing things in Sin Sam House.  The defendant was instructed to go to the estate and wait for Ah Keung’s call. 

8.  At about 3 pm Ah Keung instructed the defendant over the telephone to pick up the keys to the premises at a flowerbed.  He was told to use those to burgle Room 229.  After picking up the keys and the eyebrow clipper, the defendant followed a resident into Sin Sam House and used the key with the Chinese characters to open the door of Room 229.  He then informed Ah Keung over the telephone that he was unable to open the iron gate of the room, and Ah Keung said that he would call the defendant back later on.

9.  The defendant has a number of previous convictions.  He has appeared before the court on seven previous occasions in relation to 20 offences.  He started to appear before the courts in 1996.  And his last conviction was in 2011 when, for trafficking in dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.  Although 12 of the offences recorded relate to offences of dishonesty, there are no previous convictions for offences of burglary.  

10.  I am told that the defendant is 35 years of age.  He was educated to Form 3 standard.  At the time of this offence, the defendant was working as a part-time casual worker earning some $6,000 per month.  The defendant does have family living in Hong Kong, father, stepmother and a younger brother, but I am told that he has lost contact with his family.

11.  The defendant was last released from prison on 22 July 2013.  I am told that he has tried to lead a law-abiding life but has found it very difficult to find regular employment.  Because he has lost contact with his family, he has no home and has had to resort to sleeping in parks and occasionally getting a room. 

12.  His counsel has rightly pointed out there are no aggravating features in this particular case such as entry of premises where people were in residence.  There was no loss to the victims or damage caused to their premises, and the offence was committed in broad daylight. 

13.  However, I note that this was an offence that was committed with some degree of planning.  It was not an opportunistic offence.  He was acting in concert with another person who gave him instructions to go to these specific premises. 

14.  As counsel for the defence has rightly conceded, the normal starting point for this offence is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant does not have the advantage of a clear record. 

15.  Having considered all the circumstances, what I have decided to do is take a starting point at the lower end of the sentencing range for offences of this kind.  I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea of the defendant.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for 2 years.