|
DCCC 864/2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 864 OF 2016
____________
____________
| Before: |
H.H. Judge G. Lam |
| Present: |
Ms. Irene POON, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. John Marray instructed by M/s Littlewoods, for the defendant.
|
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He and 2 accomplices burgled his friend's home and stole a safe containing jewelleries, a cell phone and some cash.
Summary of Facts
2. Madam LO (PW1) and her mother (PW2 Madam LEUNG) reside at a public housing unit situated at Yat Man House, Ho Man Tin Estate ("the Flat"). They have known the defendant for many years since he was a friend of PW1's late father.
3. About 9:30 a.m. on 11 July 2016, PW2 left the Flat for work. PW1 was still at home then.
4. About 5:00 p.m. on the same day, PW1 left home leaving the defendant, who was visiting, behind. Since the defendant has been a family friend for over 10 years, PW1 felt comfortable letting him stay in the Flat by himself. But the defendant was never given any keys to the Flat.
5. PW1 returned to the Flat about 10:50 in the same evening. She found the wooden door prized open and damaged; the Flat was ransacked as well. PW1 alerted the Police and notified PW2 and the defendant.
6. PW2 returned home about midnight. She found a safe and a suitcase missing. The safe was attached to the wall beneath a dressing table in PW2's bedroom. It contained 5 pairs of earrings (valued at $31,000); cash in the sum of RMB2,000; and a mobile phone (valued at $3,400).
7. The defendant initially told the Police that he had left the Flat around 6:00 p.m. on that day and the Flat was intact when he left.
8. CCTV footage of the rear entrance of Yat Man House captured the defendant knocking on the rear door around 10:17 that evening. A male opened the rear door from inside. The defendant and another male who was pulling a small suitcase with wheels then entered the building. About 20 minutes later, the defendant and a male pulling a small suitcase with wheels came out of the rear entrance.
9. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he went to the Flat to ask PW2 to repay a loan which PW2's son owed him. But PW2 refused to do so. The defendant became angry and asked Ah Hill (WP1) and Ah Yin (WP2) to help him steal PW2's safe to teach her a lesson.
10. In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted in details why and how he burgled the Flat with WP1 and WP2. He claimed that after they removed the safe from the Flat, they took a taxi to a hillside where WP2 parked his private car. They hauled the safe to the front passenger seat of WP2's car. WP2 then drove away with the safe; whereas the defendant and WP1 shared a taxi to go home. The defendant claimed that he does not know the whereabouts of the safe or what it contained. He only has WP2's phone number and met WP1 for the first time that evening.
Mitigation & Sentence
11. The defendant is 32 and single. He has 2 conviction records, none of which is related to "Theft". Defence counsel Mr. Marray informed me that the defendant's parents had a divorce before he was born. He grew up in Po Leung Kuk. Prior to his arrest, the defendant had a job setting up exhibition booths earning $20,000 per month.
12. In mitigation, Mr. Marray submitted that the defendant used to work for PW2's husband, and has become quite close to her family. Although PW2's husband had passed away, the defendant has kept in touch with the family. PW2's son borrowed $10,000 from the defendant but did not repay the loan. The defendant therefore approached PW2, who initially agreed to repay on her son's behalf, but later retracted from her promise. On the day of the offence, the defendant went to the Flat to ask for repayment, but PW2 refused to pay. He became angry and foolishly decided to get the money back himself. The defendant has only asked WP2 to help, but WP2 brought along WP1. Mr. Marray explained that WP2 drove off with the safe, and the defendant did not receive any property contained in the safe. Finally, Mr. Marry submitted that the defendant accepts what he did was wrong and offers his apologies to PW2 and her family.
13. The defendant might well have a legitimate reason to pursue PW2's son for his unpaid debt. The bottom line is he cannot take the law into his own hands. I note that the defendant did not gain entry to the Flat by abusing his family friend status, which could have been an aggravating factor. He and 2 others broke into the Flat like ordinary burglars.
14. The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. I adopt the same starting point in the present case. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment.
|