HKSAR v. THE CHEUNG FUNG

DCCC 824/2015 & 50/2016
(Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 824 OF 2015 & 50 OF 2016 (CONS)

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.

2.  The facts are as follows.

3.  On 6 July 2015 the defendant broke into the first victim’s premises in Tai Pei Square, Tsuen Wan, after she left home at about 4.30 in the afternoon.  The flat was ransacked but nothing was missing. 

4.  The first victim came home at about 10.30 that evening and discovered the burglary.  The window frame of her home had been prised open.  The police found, or rather the police lifted a palm print from inside the premises which later identified the defendant as the burglar. 

5.  Relating to the 2nd Charge, on 8 July 2015, the second victim found the defendant on her doorstep after he rang the bell.  She thought he was suspicious and called the police.  The police arrived and took down the defendant’s personal details. 

6.  The defendant lived on the same floor as the second victim in Lei Muk Shue Estate, Kwai Chung.  In fact, the defendant’s toilet and the second victim’s toilet faced each other.  The two toilets were about 4 metres apart and there was a platform that linked the two toilets. 

7.  On the next day, 9 July, the defendant burgled the second victim’s flat.  She went out early in the morning and did not come home till early evening.  Whilst she was out for work, the defendant climbed into her toilet window.  Obviously, he would be the main suspect and was arrested not long after the second victim reported this burglary. 

8.  The defendant made a full admission under caution to the police.  He admitted he had entered through the toilet window, ransacked her apartment and stolen valuables such as a computer, a computer monitor, accessories, a cheque book and keys.  The value of her stolen items added up to $7,000 odd.  All these items were recovered in the defendant’s flat.

9.  The best mitigation today is the defendant’s plea of guilty.

10.  The defendant is not a man with a clear record. He has many previous convictions, 21 convictions obtained over 13 court appearances.  Of those, 4 are burglary convictions, all dealt with and sentenced in June 2013.  There are other previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty as well as possession of dangerous drugs and trafficking in dangerous drugs. 

11.  Miss Chow has said all she can say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation. 

12.  The defendant is 36 years old.  He is single but he is a father to a 7-year-old daughter.  His daughter lives with his ex-girlfriend. 

13.  The defendant was last released from prison in March 2015 where thereafter he got a well-paid job as a transportation worker. However, he was made redundant in July 2015.  In September 2015, his daughter was about to start primary school which means that expenses would be incurred such as buying books and uniform.  The defendant at that time had no income, so he committed these offences to try and find the money needed for those extra expenses.

14.  Where a domestic premise is burgled, normally a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate where there is no aggravating or mitigating factors. 

15.  Having considered the facts and mitigation, I do not find there have been any aggravating factors.  The defendant does have similar previous convictions, but his criminal record has not yet reached a level where it would be considered an aggravating factor to take into account yet.  I also do not find there have been any mitigating factors that exist. However, I will take into account that although there were two premises burgled, they were burgled three days apart.  I also take into account the first victim suffered no financial loss and the second victim recovered all her property.  Also, when the burglaries occurred, there was no one at home or confronted by an intruder. 

16.  Defendant, please stand up.

17.  I will take into account those factors I have just referred to as well as mitigation put forward, the defendant’s plea today and the totality principle.  I do find a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment appropriate for each charge.   The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.  And when that discount is applied, for both charges, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

18.  I will order that 4 months of Charge 2 be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.  Therefore, the total sentence is one of 2 years and 4 months.   Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understood.