HKSAR v. CHIU CHI KEUNG

 DCCC544/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 544 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted at trial of the burglary at the Harry Industrial Building. The burglary is of a kind I think we describe as a walk-in burglary.

2.  The defendant had gone to the industrial building in question and, on my finding, had walked into room 211 taken a bag that was lying there in the hope it might contain something valuable and then had left the building and was trying to discover if there was anything of value in the bag at the time when he was arrested by the policeman outside.

3.  Now, as far as the nature of the crime is concerned, the premises did, in fact, have a dual use. They were, on the face of it, primarily the office of PW4 but he also lived there with PW3. There was a bed but there does not appear to be any kitchen or bathroom.

4.  Obviously the starting point for sentence is different when one burgles a residential premises from when one burgles a commercial premises and the premises have to be classified. The defendant, I think, must have anticipated that this was a commercial premises. It must be, I believe, only used as a commercial premises and it is probably used in breach of the lease when this premises is used as a residential premises. I found that, considering all the evidence in the case, it is fairer to treat this a burglary at a commercial premises rather than residential.

5.  As far as the defendant is concerned his antecedence indicates he is aged 26. He is educated to Form 3. He has been a transportation worker, indeed, that was clear from the video recorded interviews and a decoration worker. He was a casual worker with a salary of about $6,000. I am told from the antecedence, the defendant’s last release from custody was on 22 August 2008. He is single and lives with his mother and elder brother who is a basketball coach. And I am told that he has concern for his mother who has some psychiatric problems and while he devotes such income as he has to her support. He is not a drug addict and has no Triad associations.

6.  The defendant does have a criminal record dating back to the year 2000 involving unlawful possession and theft. The defendant has been to training centre and, in 2003, committed his first burglary which led to a detention centre. Finally in 2007, he committed a further burglary and was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment together with two months for breach of suspended sentence so this is the third burglary offence committed.

7.  He is still a young man and I consider that the normal starting point for commercial burglary would be a sufficient sentence for him on this occasion. The sentence I pass in respect of this offence is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.