HKSAR v. PENG LAIFU

DCCC182/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 182 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The Defendant pleads guilty to two counts of burglary.

2.   One Mr Suen was a tenant of the second floor of a three-storey village house located in Chung Hing Street, Cheung Chau.  At around 1 am on 26 December 2009, the said Mr Suen checked that his camera (valued at $5,000), watch (valued at $2,000) and cash of $800 were placed inside the sitting room of his premises before he went to bed.  The door of the balcony leading to the premises was not locked.

3.   At around 11 am on the same day, Mr Suen found that the above-mentioned properties were missing and there was no sign of forced entry or ransacking inside the premises.  Mr Suen then made a report to the police.

4.   A fingerprint which was lifted from the kitchen wall of the premises was found to match with the Defendant’s fingerprint.

5.   The burglary in such premises was the subject matter of Charge no. 1.

6.   Another Madam Ng was a tenant of the second floor of a three-storey village house located in Ko Shan Tseun, Cheung Chau.  At around 12 am on 3 August 2010, Madam Ng placed her iPod (valued at $1,300), mobile phone (valued at $1,730), personalised Octopus card and cash of $900 in the sitting room of the second premises and went to bed.  The door of the balcony leading to the second premises was not locked.

7.   At around 7 am on the same day, she found that the stolen properties were missing and there was no sign of forced entry or ransacking inside the second premises.  Madam Ng then made a report to the police.

8.   The burglary in the second premises was the subject matter of Charge no. 2.

9.   Five unauthorised transactions totalling to $77.10 were made with Madam Ng’s personalised Octopus card between 4.57 am to 12.19 pm on 3 August 2010 at five different locations.

10.   CCTV at three of the locations - namely (a) Cheung Chau Ferry Terminal at 4.57 am, (b) 7-Eleven convenience store at Mong Kok MTR station at 6.50 am, and (c) Lo Wu MTR station at 12.19 pm - captured the Defendant’s appearance at the respective time, and CCTV at Lo Wu Immigration checkpoint showed that the Defendant left Hong Kong at 12.27 pm on 3 August 2010.

11.   The Defendant was placed on a wanted person list and was intercepted while he returned to Hong Kong from Lo Wu on 15 January 2011.

12.   The Defendant remained silent under caution.

13.   TIC movement record shows that the Defendant was in Hong Kong at all material times, and the Defendant was a two-way permit holder at all times.

14.   The Defendant is 42 years of age.  He has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He is a Mainland resident, received education up to Primary One level.  He is the sole breadwinner in the family and he is married with his wife and son living in Guangxi.  However, the Defendant worked as a casual worker in Shenzhen with an unsteady income.

15.   According to Mr Yeung, solicitor for the Defendant, the Defendant committed the offences out of impulse and he is sorry for the crime that he has committed.

16.   Mr Yeung also urges the court to consider that the value of the properties stolen in the present case is not large, and urges the court to treat the Defendant as leniently as possible.

17.   However, burglary is always a very serious offence.  As the burglary was committed in domestic premises, there is always a risk that the occupants of the premises may be alarmed by the burglary committed by the Defendant.

18.   According to established sentencing guidelines, the normal starting point for a burglary in domestic premises is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.

19.   I will adopt the same starting point for both charges.

20.   Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence for Charge 1 and 2 is reduced to one of 2 years’ imprisonment.

21.   There was a time lapse of about 7½ months between the commission of the two offences.  They should be regarded as two separate incidents and so, as a matter of principle, the sentence in both charges should run consecutively.

22.   However, taking into account the totality principle, I only order 1 year of the sentence in Charge 2 to run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1, making a total of 3 years’ imprisonment, and this is the sentence I impose in the present case.