HKSAR v. KONG TAT CHEONG

DCCC 674/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 674 OF 2012

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  In summary at 2045 hours on the 11th May this year Mr Tai, the tenant of Room C, Flat 11, 19th Floor, Cambridge Building, 25-41 Hong Ning Road, Sau Mau Ping, left home together with his friend Mr Lin.       Mr Tai locked the door of his room with a padlock.  Ten minutes later      Mr Tai and Mr Lin returned to Room C to find the defendant leaving the room carrying a bag, which Mr Tai recognised as belonging to him.          Mr Tai also noticed the padlock had been removed.

3.  When the defendant tried to flee Mr Tai intercepted him in the common corridor, while Mr Lin called the police.  During the struggle the defendant dropped the bag, inside which was a portable game machine, two mobile phones and some dental floss, all of which belonged to Mr Tai. Also inside the bag was another bag containing equipment fit for stealing including seven screwdrivers, a crowbar, two pairs of pliers, a set of skeleton keys and a torch.  The padlock removed from the door of Room C was also found in this bag.   

4.  The defendant tried to flee again but was stopped by Mr Tai at the staircase.  Very soon after the police arrived and arrested the defendant.  In a video interview the defendant admitted breaking the padlock and entering the room where he stole the items found in the bag.

5.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Ng on behalf of the defendant, together with the content of the defendant’s letter. 

6.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment                      (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).

7.  The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, having convictions for offences of dishonesty, including robbery and fraud, the last being for attempted fraud, for which he received a 6 months prison sentence in October 2009. 

8.  Although the defendant went equipped for burglary he has no convictions for offences of burglary.  I therefore do not propose to increase the starting point by reason of the defendant being a persistent offender.

9.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.