HKSAR v. HUI WING CHIU

DCCC 172/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 172 OF 2010

____________

____________

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant stands convicted after trial of two charges of burglary of commercial premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 (charges 1 & 3).

2.  Full particulars of the offences are set out in the verdict delivered yesterday. Both offences relate to burglary of private offices of two banks, the Societe Generale Corporate & Investment Banking (“SG”) and Calyon Credit Agricole CIB (“Calyon”) in June last year. The defendant gained access to the banks’ offices by following staff of the banks into the offices. The defendant stole nine new printer cartridges valued at $13,424 from SG and was in the process of stealing five new printer cartridges from Calyon when he was questioned about what he was doing.

3.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of commercial premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is two years and six months imprisonment. Where the defendant has committed more than one offence of a similar nature at different times a higher sentence than if there had been only one offence is appropriate (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).

4.  Mr Chan submits the burglaries are different to other burglaries in that no tools were used, the defendant just following staff of the bank into the offices. I do not accept these crimes are akin to those of a sneak thief who walks into an open office to steal whatever he can find for which a lower starting point may be appropriate (see the observations of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v LUI Yuen-shun CACC 322/2006 and HKSAR v SIM Ka-wing CACC 450/2000).

5.  These were planned burglaries, the defendant choosing a specific time, namely lunch time when the offices were likely to be less busy. The defendant was also fully prepared if he was confronted about what he was doing by taking with him name cards and a book of purported invoices to try show he was there to collect printer cartridges for recycling and by taking with him the stickers “EXPRIED/RETURN” (exhibit P11), so as to try pass off what he was stealing was old expired printer cartridges. I am satisfied the proper starting point on each charge is two years and six months imprisonment.

6.  In passing sentence I have taken into account the defendant’s clear record; that he reported to the police that someone had left $300 at an ATM machine; and his work as a volunteer leader as set out in the letter from Father Gallo. I have also carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Chan, including the defendant is the main breadwinner of the family.

Totality of sentence

7.  The two burglaries committed on the 4th and 23rd June last year are separate and distinct for which consecutive sentences are appropriate. I am satisfied an overall sentence of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment is appropriate, which properly reflects the defendant’s criminality for these two burglaries.

8.  The defendant is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 – 2 years and 6 months imprisonment; and

Charge 3 – 2 years and 6 months imprisonment

1 year and 3 months consecutive and 1 year and 3 months concurrent