HKSAR v. TSUI MAN CHEONG

DCCC 734/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 734 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.

2.  On the day in question, the Defendant returned to his employer’s company after it was closed and gained entry by cutting the metal chain and 3 padlocks at the rear door.

3.  He also used a screw driver to prize open a drawer and stole 25,000 Japanese yen, HK$1,300 from a metal box and a mobile phone from another drawer.

4.  The Defendant has a spent record in 1988 for an offence of giving false information to police.  He paid a fine of $750.  I treat the Defendant has a clear record.

5.  In mitigation, I am told that the Defendant is 35.  Married.  His wife lives in China and is coming to Hong Kong on a one way permit soon.  At the time of committing the present offence, he earned $8,000 per month as a warehouse keeper and $400 each time as a part time transportation worker.

6.  On the day of committing the present offence, he needed the money to pay for the rent as his friend had borrowed money from him and he was left with nothing.

7.  I am also told that all the stolen properties had been recovered.

8.  All the Defendant’s friend, colleagues and his wife wrote to this Court to mitigate on his behalf.

9.  In passing sentence, I have regard to all the mitigating factors.  I rejected the defence’s plea for a Community Service Order because this is totally wrong in principle and will send a wrong message to the public.  This is a non domestic burglary case; the using starting point is 2½ years.

10.  The money involved was not substantial and had all been recovered; however, there is an aggravating factor that the Defendant was employed by the victim company at the material time.  The Defendant knew that there was no one inside the company because it was chained up with padlocks.  He therefore returned to the company to steal after it was closed.  On the other hand, his employer has all the legitimate expectation and trust from the Defendant that he would not break into the company and to steal money from there.

11.  To this extend, I increase a further 6 months, the total sentence is 3 years, I reduce to 2 years to reflect his guilty plea.