HKSAR v. CHU MO KIT

DCCC1062/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1062 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  You pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  Particulars of the offence are that on 21 September, this year, at 3.15 in the afternoon you entered a domestic premises in Yee Kuk Street, Sham Shui Po.  After you had entered the premises, the tenant came home.  However, she immediately discovered that the windows were opened but did not immediately discover you.  Some time passed before she had a good look around her premises and found you hiding behind her bedroom door. You told her you had not stolen anything from her and tried to leave; in fact, she opened the door to let you leave.

3.  Rather surprisingly, an hour or so later, she saw you again climbing on a scaffold outside her window.  She called the police.  You were then seen by police officers on the scaffolding and told to climb down. 

4.  Under caution, you admitted to the police that you had intended to steal food in her premises or from her premises and had not hurt anyone.

5.  In a video recorded interview conducted later, you gave further details and explained you had lost a lot of money belonging to your father and younger brother playing mahjong.  Your father owns a shop or runs a shop on the ground floor of the building where you entered illegally. After your father had discovered you lost all his money, you told the police that he chased you away; you hid on the rooftop obviously for some period of time.  You became hungry and searched for food which is why you climbed down the scaffolding and entered the victim’s home through a window.  Before you could take anything, she discovered you.  She let you out and you obviously repeated your intention to look for food and again you climbed down the scaffolding.  You would have committed another similar offence if she had not seen you.   

6.  The victim confirmed that she did not suffer any loss nor did you take anything from her home. 

7.  Now, you are 35 years old and a man of clear record.  Your best mitigation today is your plea of guilty.  It has been explained that you had no idea this was such a serious offence.  For anybody in their own home to confront a stranger is a serious scenario.  I do not know how anyone cannot think that is serious. 

8.  I have been told that you are a married man with two children who did rely on you financially, but you have lost your job a couple of months ago.  This was a job collecting paper that earned you an extremely good income of $500 a day.  I have been told now that your family will have to rely on public assistance. 

9.  For an offence of this nature, entering a domestic premise would normally attract a 3-year starting point.  Prison is inevitable.  That starting point is only appropriate if there are no mitigating or aggravating factors.  I have not heard any real mitigating factors.  In fact, there could be an aggravating factor because you confronted PW1 in her own home.  But I do not intend to add to a starting point I find appropriate. 

10.  Defendant, please stand up.  I have taken into account the tariff guidelines I have just explained to you, the defendant’s plea of guilty and previous clear record, the defendant’s background and mitigation, the facts of this case and I find appropriate a starting point of 2 years and 9 months.  You will be entitled to a discount of one-third for your plea.  Ultimately, you will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months.