HKSAR v. WEI YUANDONG

DCCC 756/2017

[2018] HKDC 296

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 756 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary and has admitted the facts and I have convicted him.

2.  The facts show that this is a domestic premises burglary committed at a house in Yuen Long on the evening, it would appear, of 19 June 2017.  The house was partially secured in the morning of 19 June 2017 by the residents and they were informed later that evening that the house had been burgled.  When they returned home they found signs of ransacking and a number of items had been stolen and they are listed in the particulars of charge.

3.  A nearby resident, who is described as PW2, saw the defendant and another person, an accomplice described as WP, at around about 2045 hours on the evening of 19 June 2017.  At that time, he saw these two men attempting to climb over the wall outside the house.  He drove nearby in his car to keep an eye on the men.  He saw them a bit later jumping off the exterior wall next to the house, suspected they had committed a burglary, followed them in his car and called the police.  The two men were making off at that time. 

4.  Eventually the police were called.  They were able to intercept the defendant and the wanted person, but both men got away. In the course of their attempt of interception, they grabbed a black backpack that was carried by the wanted person and that carried various stolen properties which were later identified.

5.  Further investigation showed that the defendant and the wanted person reserved a room at the Metropark Hotel in Kowloon that evening - that was the evening of 19 June and 20 June - and they had checked in about 1840 hours on 19 June. 

6.  The wanted person had in fact left Hong Kong at 2300 hours on 20 June via Lok Ma Chau, but the defendant was arrested when he attempted to depart via Lok Ma Chau.

7.  Police were also able to secure a CCTV coverage of most of the offence and showed the defendant and the wanted person acting in tandem, acting together, that they came to Hong Kong via the Lo Wu Control Point at 1652 hours on 19 June.  By 1833 hours, they had both checked in at the Metropark Hotel.  Both left the Metropark Hotel at 1851 hours and then made their way up to Yuen Long and at 2024 hours they were both seen walking along the rear lane in the vicinity of the house, and by 2030 hours they were outside the house together.  They then continued to be in each other’s company, were recorded again at 2104 hours and 2108 hours, and then seen at 2109 hours fleeing from the police, and then both recorded that evening returning alone to the Metropark Hotel at respectively 2202 hours and 2219 hours -- sorry, no, just the wanted person returned to the Metropark Hotel, the defendant not returning till 1334 hours the next day.

8.  It would appear from this agreed summary of facts that the defendant and the wanted person committed the burglary together, and appears specifically to have come to Hong Kong to commit this burglary, going straight up to commit it immediately after they had checked into the Metropark Hotel, and then leaving and attempting to leave Hong Kong after they had committed the burglary.

9.  Those are the facts.

10.  The antecedents show the defendant is 29 years old and educated to high school level in mainland China, working as a cook since 2010.  He has a wife and son aged 3, who live in Guangxi.

11.  In mitigation, the defendant puts forward his plea of guilty and says he is remorseful.  His mitigation appears to say that he came for sightseeing, but, given the video recording of his presence in Hong Kong, that seems unlikely.  But, in any event, he does admit his part in this joint enterprise to commit the burglary of domestic premises.

12.  The defendant is also of clear record in Hong Kong.

13.  As far as the starting point for sentence is concerned, this is a domestic premises burglary and the starting point for sentence for such a burglary for a person of clear record after trial would be 36 months’ imprisonment.

14.  Here, there are two specific factors which can aggravate that starting point.  The first of those is that the defendant is an outsider who has come to Hong Kong to commit an offence here, and the second factor that he did not commit the offence alone - he committed it in company of another person.

15.  Besides the defendant’s plea of guilty, there is no other identifiable mitigating factor.

16.  I believe that the aggravating factors should be acknowledged in the starting point determined for sentence.  What I shall do is adopt a starting point for sentence for this defendant of 42 months’ imprisonment.

17.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount from that figure.  That, by my calculation, leads to a final sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment, and that will be the sentence on this charge.