HKSAR v. WONG CHI MING

DCCC 732/2019

[2020] HKDC 154

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 732 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Wong, has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary. Those burglaries took place at a non-domestic premises, which was a warehouse in Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, in which liquor was stored. The security at the premises was roller shutters which are opened automatically by pressing a button. The control panel was in a box and the box was not locked, so access to the premises could be obtained by simply pressing the button.

2.  An employee of the warehouse discovered that two burglaries had taken place and that boxes of liquor had gone missing.  This witness viewed the CCTV camera of the CCTV record and discovered that the burglaries had taken place on 25 May and 2 July, and the defendant can be seen on the CCTV record.

3.  The defendant was apprehended on 3 July 2019, when the witness went to the warehouse to see if he could apprehend the burglar.  He succeeded and the defendant was intercepted.  In total, the defendant was found in possession of 11 bottles of various liquors, valued at over $16,000. 

4.  In respect of the two earlier burglaries, the numbers of bottles taken in those cases was eight in each.

5.  The defendant later, under caution, admitted the burglaries and he had said that in respect of the May burglary the eight bottles of cognac were $10,000-odd and again on the 2 July burglary the cognac he stole was worth some $10,000-odd.

6.  The defendant has admitted those facts and has been convicted of those three charges.

7.  As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, he is aged 44.  He has one recorded previous conviction in 2002 for burglary, for which he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.  Prior to his arrest, he was working as a transportation worker.  His family background is he has two adult sons from a previous marriage.  He is in the process of divorce but he has a girlfriend.  He supports his parents, giving them some $5,000 each - 10,000 in total - and provides support for his cohabiting girlfriend.

8.  Defendant’s reasons for committing the offence relate to a debt that he was owed by a person he said was the foreman of the warehouse.  In any event, his motive is not particularly relevant to sentence.

9.  The approach to sentence is as follows.  The defendant has committed a non-domestic premises burglary.  The starting point for sentence for a non-domestic premises burglary, for a person of clear record after trial, is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; 30 months’ imprisonment. That will be the figure to be adopted where there are no aggravating or mitigating features.

10.  I find there are no aggravating features in respect of the commission of the offence.  Access to the premises was straightforward and simple.  The defendant has a previous conviction for burglary.  It is 18 years old and I do not propose to treat it as an aggravating factor in this case because it appears to be a historical offence.

11.  There are no particular mitigating factors.  The mitigating factor to be taken into account is the defendant’s plea of guilty. The defendant has indicated a plea of guilty from a fairly early stage.  He admitted the offence to the police and the proceeds of the third burglary were recovered. 

12.  In respect of each of these burglaries, I will adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, which I will reduce to 20 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty. 

13.  The only other factor to consider now is the extent to which those sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.  There are three burglaries:  committed in May, and then two in consecutive days in July.  The repetitive nature of the burglaries means that some element of the sentence should be served consecutively to represent the overall seriousness of this series of offences.

14.  I consider that an overall starting point for this series of burglaries at this premises would be in the region of 3 years’ imprisonment, which, after deduction for a plea of guilty, would lead to an overall sentence of 2 years’ or 24 months’ imprisonment.

15.  I shall achieve that final sentence as follows.

16.  I shall order that sentences on the first two charges to be served concurrently to each other and 4 months of the sentence on the 3rd charge to be served consecutively to the 1st and 2nd charges, leading to an overall total of 24 months’ imprisonment.