HKSAR v. ARNON PROMTHONG

DCCC1301/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1301 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary and one charge of resisting a police or police officers in the execution of their duties. The two burglaries occurred one very shortly after the other around midnight on 2 October 2010. The burgled premises were Rooms B and C of the 4th Floor, of 50 Lung Kong Road, Kowloon City, and items were stolen from those premises and taken into premises which were at the time occupied by the defendant, namely, Room A of the same premises.

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant state that the premises concerned are residential and divided into three rooms, Rooms A to C.  Room A of the premises was occupied by a person who described herself as a godmother of the defendant, and she allowed the defendant to live in those premises.

3.  The offences came to light on 13 October at about 1730 when the occupant of Room C returned to her room and found that the door of her premises had been prised open and ransacked.

4.  The properties were as described in the charge and the value put on the properties by the victim was $36,000.

5.  When the police arrived at the premises they found that the door of Room B had also been prised open and ransacked, and they contacted the occupant of those premises who had left the room since 2 October. The occupant discovered that the property mentioned in the charge was missing. The value of that property was estimated to be $1,200.

6.  The police made enquiries at the premises generally, and they made enquiries with the defendant and his girlfriend at Room A of the premises.  At the time the defendant was unable to produce his Identity Card when it was demanded of him, and the victim, the occupant of Room A, noticed inside the premises occupied by the defendant an umbrella which she recognised, and she also found all the items which had been stolen from her premises inside Room A.  Property missing from the other flat as also recovered.

7.  When the police tried to arrest the defendant, there was a struggle.  According to the police officers, the defendant struggled vigorously, causing the officers to fall to the floor.  One of the officers sprained his right hand whilst the other sprained his right thumb.

8.  When interviewed at the time, the defendant denied the offences, but he has admitted them in court today.

9.  The defendant has appeared before the courts on nine previous occasions, and he has admitted that the current offences are in breach of a suspended prison sentence which was imposed upon him on 30 March 2010 for an offence of breach of condition of stay.  None of the previous court appearances were for offences as serious as the offences for which he appears today.  There is one of attempted theft in 2003, and one of assaulting a police officer in 1998.

10.  I am told by the defence counsel that the offences were committed on the spur of the moment.  He had had a dispute with his girlfriend after returning home the worse for wear after drink.  He stormed out and he then took it into his mind to commit the two offences.

11.  In mitigation, it was urged upon me that these offences were not pre-planned and they were not professionally executed.  Both rooms were easily accessed.  The defendant simply pushed the door of one with his shoulder and pushed open the door of the other.  No instruments were used for him to gain access to the premises.  This was opportunist offences.

12.  As regards the value of the items as assessed by the owner of the premises at Room C, it is admitted that the value is grossly inflated.  The majority of items stolen were second-hand items of clothing.  It seems difficult to see how the victim arrived at that assessment of the value. Similarly, it seems difficult to see how that valuation was arrived.  In any event, all the properties were recovered.

13.  The main mitigation in this case is the defendant has pleaded guilty today before the court.  The usual starting point for offences of domestic burglaries is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. 

14.  Having considered the various features urged upon me in mitigation by the defence, I am minded to take a slightly lower starting point, a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment, and reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.  That would reduce the sentences on the individual burglaries to a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.

15.  I considered the question of totality and having considered the circumstances, the proximity of the premises, and the fact that the burglaries were committed at more or less the same time, I have decided that concurrent sentences are appropriate in this case.

16.  So for each of the burglaries, the defendant will go to prison for 18 months, both sentences to run concurrently.

17.  As regards the 3rd Charge of resisting police officers in the execution of duty, fortunately the injuries sustained by the officers were minor injuries.  However, officers need to be protected in carrying out their often dangerous work in apprehending criminals. 

18.  I take the view that a sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment is appropriate in this case, and that should run consecutive to the sentence on Charges 1 and 2.

19.  The defendant is also admittedly in breach of his suspended sentence imposed for a period of 4 weeks.  No argument has been put to the court why the suspended sentence should be activated and it would be difficult to imagine how a responsible defence counsel could put forward such an argument.  The suspended sentence is activated and I order that it run consecutive to the other sentences imposed.

20.  So the total period of imprisonment will be 19 months and 4 weeks.

21.  As regards Charge 4, that will remain on the court file, not to be proceeded with without being with the court.