HKSAR v. YEUNG WAI KEI

DCCC1375/2010 & DCCC18/2011 (Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1375 OF 2010 &

CRIMINAL CASE NO.18 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged for 4 counts of burglary, 3 counts contrary to section 11(1)(b) and 4 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 (Charge 1, 2, 4); and one count contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 (Charge 3)

The defendant pleaded guilty to charge 1, 2 and 4, and admitted the facts, he is convicted accordingly. Upon prosecution’s application, the charge 3 to be kept on court file not to proceeded without leave.

Facts

In between 12:30 pm on 13 February 2010 and 2:00am on 14 February 2010, the defendant entered Premises 1 via a ventilation window and stole the items as particularized in Charge 1 therein and leaving behind a glove. The total value of the stolen properties was about $1.46 million. None of the stolen properties could be recovered. (Charge 1)

In between 10:30am and 6:15pm on 19 September 2010, the defendant entered Premises 4 by prizing open the main door and stole the items as particularised in Charge 4 therein. The total value of the stolen properties was about $15,750. (Charge 4)

In between 6:30pm on 17 September 2010 and the afternoon of 22 September 2010, the defendant entered Premises 2 by prizing open the main door and stole the items particularized in Charge 2 therein. The total value of the stolen properties was about $23,000. (Charge 2)

The victim of charge 2 reported the matter to Police on 23 September, when the victim and the Police entered Premises 2 on 23 September, the defendant was found therein. The Police conducted enquiries and swept the opposite flat (Premises 3). Inside Premises 3, all the stolen properties from Premises 2 were found save one notebook computer and one router. The total value of the stolen properties from Premises 2 recovered was $20,000.

Further properties did not belonged to Premises 3 were found, amongst those properties, the victims of Premises 4 identified all the properties stolen from them except cash of 1000 Thailand baht, cash of Y500 Renminbi and one HSBC bank card.

In addition, at time of the arrest, the defendant was in possession of a mobile phone stolen from Premises 4. The total value of stolen properties from Premises 4 recovered was $15,000.

All these concerned domestic burglary, and I considered the appropriate starting for each to be 3 years.

Mitigation

The defendant aged 30, married with a one year old son. The defendant was unemployed and addicted to ICE. The defendant committed the offences out of greed and was remorse for his wrong. The wife now moves back to live with her mother together with the son. The defendant has 12 previous convictions of which 7 related to dishonesty.

The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea. I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor that called for further deduction, however taking into account of the totality principal I would order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive, making a total of 36 months imprisonment.

Order

Charge 1 sentenced to 24 months imprisonment;

Charge 2 sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, 18 months concurrent and 6 months consecutive;

Charge 4 sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, 18 months concurrent and 6 months consecutive;

making a total of 36 months imprisonment.