HKSAR v. LAOTAEW WATCHARA

DCCC 536/2021

[2021] HKDC 1110

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 536 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  D pleads guilty to burglary. 

Facts

Background

2.  There is a shop situated on the ground floor level in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, that sells and repairs second-hand watches (“the Shop”). The Shop opens daily from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Shop has a glass door on the side which is normally locked. There is a working table inside and a glass cabinet thereunder in which watches are kept on small trays.

3.  At around 5:30 p.m. on 8 April 2021, the Shop owner PW1 left the Shop after locking the glass door. When he returned at around 10:30 a.m. on 9 April 2021, he found the glass door smashed. The cost of repair was around $2,000. About 30 watches worth around $30,000 in total were missing.

CCTV Evidence

4.  CCTV installed inside the Shop captured the Defendant entering the Shop through the broken glass door at around 4:32 a.m. on 9 April 2021. The Defendant rummaged through the glass cabinet, took out the small trays found therein, and poured the watches into a bag he had picked up in the Shop. The Defendant left the Shop with the bag at around 4:39 a.m.

Search & Arrest

5.  Police investigation revealed that the Defendant had entered Rondall Building situated at No.168-178 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, Hong Kong after leaving the Shop.

6.  At around 9:27 a.m. on 10 April 2021, the Defendant emerged from Rondall Building and was intercepted by the Police. The Police searched the Defendant’s rucksack and found a watch and a torch therein. The Defendant was then arrested for “Burglary” and admitted under caution that he broke into the Shop and stole PW1’s watches because he was mad at PW1 for his poor attitude.

7.  PW1 identified the watch seized from the Defendant as properly stolen from the Shop. The estimated value of the watch was around HK$200.

8.  The Police searched the Defendant’s home on 10 April 2021 and found one black cap with an “NY” logo, one black mask, one black windbreaker, one pair of black trousers, and one pair of sneakers all believed to have been worn by the Defendant during the offence as captured by CCTV.

Video-Recorded Interview

9.  A video-recorded interview was conducted with the Defendant in the presence of a Thai interpreter on 10 April 2021 during which he made the following admissions under caution:-

(a)  He resented PW1 because PW1 was rude to him;

(b)  At around 4 a.m. on 9 April 2021, he entered the Shop by cutting the glass door with a glass-cutting pen and then smashing it with his arm;

(c)  He stole around 20 watches which he then threw away. He kept the watch seized arrest because he like it; and

(d)  The torch seized at arrest and the articles of clothing found in his home were what he had used and worn, respectively, at the time of the offence.

The Offence

10.  At the material times, the Defendant, having entered the Shop as a trespasser, stole about 30 watches therein.

Mitigation

11.  D was born in Thailand and came to Hong Kong in 2000.  He is 34 years of age, of F.2 education level in Hong Kong.  He has separated from his wife. Their 13-year-old daughter lives with her in Thailand.  He has a cohabitant in Hong Kong.  They have a 4-year-old daughter and an 8-month-old son.  He is the breadwinner of the family.  Prior to his arrest, he was a construction site worker earning a monthly salary of about $24,000.

12.  The mitigation letters from his family, church, and colleague show support for his reformation.

13.  He had one record for possession of prohibited weapons, for which he was sentenced to a fine of $3,000 or 14 days.  This is not an aggravating feature in his sentence.

14.  He now makes voluntary compensation of $2,000 to the Shop as the repair cost of the glass door through his solicitors.      

15.  The usual starting point in cases of burglary of non-domestic premises with no aggravating features is 30 months according to HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000.

Sentence

16.  I take the usual starting point.  After the one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is 20 months.  I reduce it further by two weeks due to the voluntary compensation. 

17.  The final sentence is 19 months 2 weeks.