HKSAR v. SZETO MAN KEUNG

DCCC638/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 638 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  On 15 April this year the defendant climbed to the top of a building in Ho Man Tin via the scaffolding erected.  After reaching the top, he descended via the scaffolding and stopped on the 20th floor.  He entered 20A by gaining entry through an open window.  Before he searched the apartment he glued the door lock of the main door and in the apartment he found cash and lai see packets containing cash, as well as an ATM bank card. 

3.  He left via the same window and climbed down to the 15th floor.  He entered Flat 15C by kicking open a window frame.  He stole from within this apartment watches, jewellery, cash and some foreign currency. He then left this apartment by the front door and took the lift down to the ground floor.  He was arrested as he left the building.  He was caught red-handed and under caution made a full admission to the police. 

4.  All the stolen items were recovered.

5.  The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.

6.  The defendant has a poor criminal record.  He has 13 previous convictions, of which 11 are related to burglary.  Those 11 occasions involve a total of 19 counts of burglary.  The defendant’s last offence was in 1989 and he was discharged from prison in 2001. 

7.  For 10 years the defendant has stayed out of trouble.  In that time he has got married and become a father.  He had employment during this period of time as a plumber, and I have heard in mitigation that the defendant did assist the Hong Kong Government during the SARS disaster by removing all sewage pipes at Amoy Gardens with a team of other plumbers. 

8.  I am sure in this case the defendant saw a building shrouded in scaffolding and netting and knew that this would mean an easy access to certain apartments, so leading to the commission of these offences.

9.  There are certain factors that I consider relevant.  There were no persons at home during the burglaries; all the items were ultimately recovered; although there is no clear evidence of ransacking the apartments, the defendant did glue the lock of Apartment 20A and damage it. 

10.  I have taken into account the letters of mitigation written by the defendant and his wife.  Both ask for leniency.  The defendant is sorry that he has left his wife and child in this predicament on their own.  The defendant’s wife is not eligible for CSSA and possibly has some health issues.  There are some medical reports submitted.  The wife has said she has no family or friends in Hong Kong and is very alone as well as illiterate which will make finding employment very difficult.

11.  Although I am very sympathetic towards her, the defendant knew all of this when he took the risk to commit these offences.

12.  Where domestic premises are concerned and they are burgled, a customary sentence of a 3 year starting point is appropriate when there is no mitigating or aggravating factors. 

13.  This defendant is a persistent offender.  The defendant’s record could be an aggravating factor that would increase the starting point, but as the defendant has stayed out of trouble for 10 years, I am not going to increase this starting point for being a recidivist.  I at the same time see no other mitigating factors that will allow me to depart from what is a customary sentence.

14.  Defendant, please stand up.  I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each offence.  You are entitled to a discount of 1 year for your plea today.  For Charges 1 and 3, you are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

15.  I am going to order that both sentences be served concurrently.  You will serve a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.