HKSAR v. WONG HO TING

DCCC 106/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 106 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges and facts

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to 3 burglaries.  The first took place on between 6^th and 7^th December 2010 at the phone room of Waldorf Garden, Tuen Mun (“Location 1”).  The second and third took place on 14^th December 2010 at the respective telecommunication rooms of Blocks 14 and 15 of Lung Mun Oasis (“Locations 2 and 3”).  He had been an employee of a contractor of PCCW.  Before termination of employment in 2009, he was responsible for installation of telecommunication services at residential estates.  Afterwards, he did not return his PCCW uniform to his employer.  

2.  On the dates of the offences, he disguised himself in his PCCW uniform.  The security guards were conned into giving him the keys to open the doors of the phone room at Locations 1, 2 and 3. 

3.  He was discovered by some PCCW technicians who were to work at the telecommunication room at Block 15.  He tried to flee but in vain.  The police arrived and found from his bag, apart from wires later known to be worth $327 stolen from Locations 2 and 3, a number of keys to the 3 locations, a pair of gloves, a pair of pincers and two screwdrivers. 

4.  He admitted the 3 offences after arrest and caution.  He had already spent the $300 received for selling the wires stolen from Location 1.

5.  The wires stolen from Location 1 were worth $870.

6.  There was power leakage hazard, although no actual leakage occurred, as a result of the ground earth wires being stolen by the Defendant at the 3 locations. 

Sentencing guidelines for non-domestic premises

7.  In Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC, the Court of Appeal stated that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises would be 2½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age.  In HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing Cr App 450/2000, the Court of Appeal stated that such starting point related to burglaries with no aggravating factors.

Personal background and mitigation put forward

8.  The Defendant is 23 years of age. He was educated up to F4.  He lives with his parents and younger brother.  He has a previous record for possession of offensive weapon in 2003 and one for theft in 2006.  He had been working for that contractor of PCCW for 6 months before termination.  After losing his job, he remained unemployed until arrest.  He is still owed wages of $8,000 by his employer but he has not filed any claim so far.   

9.  His solicitor accepts that the ploy of disguise and the power leakage hazard are aggravating factors. 

Present sentence

10.  For each burglary, I take a starting point of 3 years due to the ploy of disguise and the power leakage hazard.  I give a one-third discount because of the plea of guilty.  There are no other mitigating factors.  The sentence is 2 years each.  I regard the 2^nd and the 3^rd Charges as a single transaction.  This warrants fully concurrent sentences for the 2^nd and the 3^rd Charges. 

11.  By way of totality, I order only 6 months of the 2^nd and the 3^rd Charges to be served consecutive to the 1^st Charge. The overall length is thus 2 years and 6 months.