HKSAR v. LEUNG CHEUNG HOI

 DCCC1335/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1335 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary. Both charges were committed on 25 October 2009 at storerooms on a construction site at the Shui On Building Contractors Limited in Kung Ngam Road, Chai Wan.

2.  The defendant stole two rolls of wire from one of the storerooms and seven rolls of wire from the second storeroom. Each roll of wire is valued at $10,000.

3.  The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that in May of 2008, the Shui On Building Contractors Limited were conducting renovation work at Block A, Ming Wah Dai Ha in Kung Ngam Road, Chai Wan. There were two storerooms on the ground floor of the building. Each of the storerooms were securely locked with a padlock. At the material time inside the first storeroom there were 20 rolls of wire, whilst inside the second there were 40.

4.  At 6.30 pm on 25 October 2009, a female security guard saw the defendant and another man removing nine rolls of wire and putting them into a medium goods vehicle. The man with the defendant was the driver of that vehicle. When asked by the security guard to produce documents, the defendant failed to do so. She stopped him from driving away and the defendant later agreed to unload the wires from the vehicle and put them back in the storeroom.

5.  The person in charge of the renovation work was called to the scene and he confirmed that the defendant had worked at the site for a short period in July of 2009 and was dismissed for poor work performance. The defendant admitted that he intended to steal the wires and the police were called.

6.  The police officer who attended the scene found the two rolls of wire at storeroom 1 and the seven rolls of wire at storeroom 2 had been tampered with. The defendant admitted that he had hired the driver of the van the same day shortly before the commission of the offence.

7.  The defendant was subsequently arrested and, under caution, admitted the offence. The defendant told the police that in July 2009 he had had duplicate keys made for the storerooms for his own use and he also admitted the commission of the two offences.

8.  The defendant has a clear record. I am told in mitigation that he is 26 years of age and was educated up to secondary level 3 standard. He previously worked between 1998 and 2007, he worked as a kitchen worker and after that he obtained this employment on the construction site in 2009. I am told that the defendant is extremely remorseful for his involvement in this offence. He is currently working as a casual electrical worker earning $1,400 a day.

9.  He lives with his parents and contributes to the expenses of the family. It was urged upon me that the defendant had entered the plea of guilty at the first opportunity. I am told that he committed the offence out of greed and was motivated to commit the offence because he owed people a lot of money. I was also told that the defendant did not realise that the wire was so expensive.

10.  Non-domestic burglary such as this normally attract a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment as a starting point. It was urged upon me that because of the mitigation and, in particular, because of the clear record of the defendant that I should treat this defendant more leniently. However I note that this offence involved a degree of premeditation. The defendant had duplicate keys made for the storerooms. He had had to hire a vehicle and driver. I was told that he did not realise the wire was so expensive but he must have realised that they were of sufficient value take all worth going to that trouble. The value of the property was not inconsiderable; the nine rolls were valued at $90,000.

11.  Having considered all those features of the case I am not persuaded that, in this case, that I should depart from the usual sentencing tariff.

12.  In respect of each offence I take a starting point of 2½ years and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea that has been entered. The sentence will therefore be one of 20 months’ imprisonment in respect of each offence. There are two offences and I have to consider the question of totality. Both offences were committed at the same time and in different storerooms on the same building site. Having taken that into consideration and looked at the background of the defendant generally, I propose that the sentences should be served concurrently. The total sentence will be 20 months’ imprisonment for each offence; the sentence is to run concurrently.