|
DCCC 864/2025
[2026] HKDC 984
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 864 OF 2025
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
| Before: |
His Honour Judge Tam in Court |
| Present: |
Ms Liza SH Yip, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Ng Kin Wah Kevin, of Kevin Ng & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offences: |
[1] & [2] Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---------------------------------------------
1. Mr Chan faces a charge sheet consisting of two charges of Burglary, respectively contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) (Charge 1) and section 11(1)(b) and (4) (Charge 2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
2. Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 26 December 2024, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, entered as trespassers part of a building known as a toilet, the back alley, Ground Floor, Lee Wo Building, No 130 Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, with intent to steal therein.
3. Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on 26 December 2024, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, having entered as trespassers part of a building known as Ground Floor, No 31 Shek Yam Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, stole therein cash of around $20,020 Hong Kong currency and one key.
4. Before me, Mr Chan pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to Charge 2.
5. Prosecution asked that Charge 1 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. Upon conviction of Mr Chan on Charge 2, I so ordered.
Facts admitted by Mr Chan
6. “Two Dollars Each” on G/F, No 31 Shek Yam Road, Kwai Chung, was a grocery store. PW1 was the cashier.
7. On 25 December 2024, at 8 pm, PW1 knocked off work. When she returned the next day at 8 am, she found that:
(a) The wires of the two CCTV cameras had been cut;
(b) Coins totaling around $100 previously placed in a coins box had gone missing;
(c) Cash of $19,920 previously placed in the cash register had gone missing;
(d) The key to the cash register had gone missing; and
(e) The rear door had been prized open.
8. The case was reported.
9. Footage from a CCTV installed at the store revealed that on 26 December 2024:
(a) At 3:44 am, Mr Chan and an unknown male (“UM”) were inside the store: each of them was wearing a cap, a face mask and a jacket and was carrying a torch; Mr Chan was also carrying a stick;
(b) At 3:45 am, UM opened the drawer of the cashier counter and took out two plastic bags; UM also moved the coins box; Mr Chan was looking around; and
(c) UM then saw the CCTV camera; several seconds later, the camera was hit by an unknown object; the footage went dark after 2 seconds.
10. The repair cost occasioned to the store came to $6,000.
11. On 26 December 2024, at 7:13 pm, police arrested Mr Chan for burglary. Under caution, Mr Chan said he was just keeping a lookout.
12. Mr Chan now admits the Particulars of Charge 2.
Criminal record
13. Mr Chan has 5 previous convictions of which one was for burglary (2017) and one was for shoplifting (2020).
Antecedents
14. Mr Chan born in Mainland is aged 53 (almost 52 at the time of the offence), educated to F6 level in Mainland. He moved to Hong Kong in 1989. Mr Chan worked as a construction site worker. He is divorced with two daughters (aged 30 and 28). He was living with his younger sister and mother in private housing in Tsuen Wan.
Mitigation
15. Mr Kevin Ng of solicitor advocate assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan. The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.
16. Mr Chan has one elder and one younger sisters.
17. Mr Chan has two daughters with his ex-wife. Mr Chan has no contact with his ex-wife or his daughters.
18. Before his arrest, Mr Chan worked as a part-time construction worker with an average monthly income of about $20,000 of which $10,000 would be given to his mother for household expenses.
19. Mr Chan committed the offence because of financial pressure and out of greed.
20. In Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215, CAAR 1/1993, the appropriate starting point of sentence for non-domestic burglary was set at 30 months’ imprisonment.
21. Mr Chan has one previous similar conviction. He also committed the offence with another person. Mr Ng suggests an enhancement of not more than 3 months for these factors.
22. Mr Ng highlighted the absence of such aggravating factors as:
(a) Personal violence or significant property loss;
(b) Use of heavy instruments or equipment;
(c) Someone frightened or injured; and
(d) Personal benefits received by Mr Chan.
23. Mr Ng suggested a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment and reminded the court to give the usual 1/3 sentencing discount to Mr Chan.
Sentence
24. I will adopt the usual starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age as a start.
25. Mr Chan is not a first offender but has two previous convictions relating to dishonesty. Together with the fact that this is a case of joint enterprise, I shall increase the starting point by 4 months to reach a final starting point of 34 months.
26. Mr Chan pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant another sentence reduction.
27. As an act of mercy, I will discard any decimal places in the calculation of the sentence in terms of months.
(Mr Chan, please stand)
28. On Charge 2, the sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.
| |
( Isaac Tam ) |
| |
District Judge |
|