HKSAR v. YEUNG CHI TIM

DCCC 822/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 822 OF 2014

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

---------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---------------------------------------

1.  The defendant, Yeung Chi Tim, pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary.

2.  The burgled premises (ie Ground Floor, No 5, O Tau Village, Tseng Lan Shue, Sai Kung, New Territories, Hong Kong) was at the material time the residence of the victim, Mr Yeung.

3.  On 27 March 2013 at 9:30 am, Mr Yeung left the premises after he had ensured that the doors and windows of the location were properly locked.  When Mr Yeung returned to his residence at around 1 am on 28 March 2013, he found that the main door of the premises (were?) half-closed and there were prise marks on the door lock. 

4.  The following items were found missing from the premises:-

(1) one motorcycle helmet worth HK$3,000;

(2) two motorcycle keys; and

(3) one camera worth HK$10,000.

5.  One fingerprint mark was lifted from a mirror placed inside the wooden cabinet where the stolen camera was originally placed and was found to match the fingerprint of the defendant’s left ring finger.

6.  On 27 June 2013, DPC 11472 arrested the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant remained silent.

7.  The defendant’s movement records show that he was in Hong Kong at all material times. 

8.  He was in the custody of the Correctional Services Department since 12 April 2013 (ie after the date of the offence).

9.  Between 27 March 2013 and 28 March 2013 (both dates inclusive), having entered as a trespasser of the premises in question, the defendant stole the stolen property.

10.  The criminal record of the defendant shows that the defendant had seven previous court appearances, with a total of 15 convictions.  Five of them were dishonesty related.  In January 2013, the defendant was convicted of the offence of conspiracy to burglary.

11.  I am grateful to Mr Mok, who has kindly prepared a written mitigation, which sets out in full the personal background of the defendant.

12.  The defendant is now 23 years old.  He is still single and he worked as a decoration worker before his remand in custody.  

13.  The defendant was sentenced to a total term of 30 months’ imprisonment for DCCC 587/2013.  He was sentenced on 27 September 2013 and he is due to be discharged on 10 December 2014.  DCCC  587/2013 concerned some traffic offences, one count of obstructing a police officer, and one of possession of prohibited weapon. 

14.  For the offence in question, Mr Mok told me on the day in question the defendant walked past the offence location after work.  As the defendant saw that the premises in question was only protected by a single metal door with a common door lock, the defendant, out of momentary greed, forcibly pulled open the metal door of the premises by hand and stole the properties therein. 

15.  Mr Mok submitted that the defendant did not bring with him any offensive weapon or housebreaking equipment and Mr Mok submitted that there are no aggravating features as far as the commission of the offence in question is concerned.

16.  Mr Mok submitted three cases: R v Wong Ming, CACC 372/1992; HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong, CACC 414/2007; and HKSAR v Hai Chung Po, CACC 115/2013. 

17.  Mr Mok submitted that, for a burglary committed at domestic premises, the normal starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment in the absence of aggravating features.  If the offender can be described as an opportunistic burglar, a lower starting point can be considered.

18.  On the facts before me, I do not think the defendant can be described as an opportunistic burglar.  The victim had properly locked the doors and windows of the premises.  Even if the defendant opened the door lock with his bare hands, it is still not a case of opportunistic burglary.

19.  The defendant is not a first offender.  In 2006, the defendant was convicted of three counts of robbery.  Later in the same year, he was convicted of one count of theft.  In 2010, he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to burgle.

20.  While I would not treat the defendant as a persistent offender, he does not have a good record which can be prayed in this favour. 

21.  On the facts before me, I take 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point. 

22.  The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea. That brings his sentence down to 2 years’ imprisonment.

23.  I am aware that the defendant is now serving a total term of 30 months’ imprisonment for DCCC 587/2013.  The offences in question were totally dissimilar in nature.  The defendant is due to be discharged on 10 December 2014.

24.  For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment, and the sentence should run concurrently with the remaining term of the sentences for DCCC 587/2013.