HKSAR v. SITU YINGYI

DCCC 670/2017

[2018] HKDC 123

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 670 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant, a 43-year-old man, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary; the premises in question are non-dwellings – a restaurant under renovation inside a hotel site in Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon. He faced an additional charge of failing to surrender to custody to which he also pleaded guilty.

2.  The front entrance to the site is a sliding glass door without locks while the surrounding of the site is boarded up and fitted with a combination lock.

3.  The burglary occurred in the middle of the night when the workers had gone off duty, but the defendant wasn’t able to cover his tracks because everything he did in the site was captured by the surveillance cameras there.

4.  About 5 a.m. on 16 November 2016, he was seen pushing open the glass door to get inside the site; with a screwdriver-like object in his hand, he spent the best part of an hour searching around and rummaging through the contents of the toolboxes. When he finally left, he was seen carrying a heavy bag full of stuff.

5.  Later in the morning at 9 o’clock when the workers returned to work, it was discovered that some tools were missing from the toolboxes and so was the combination lock.  Altogether 3 electric drills, 3 electric screwdrivers, 3 wireless chargers and 3 levels were gone the total value of which was about $20,000.

6.  A week later on 21 November 2016, a patrol officer spotted the defendant cycling in Tai Kok Tsui area and recognized him to be the thief on the video because he was wearing exactly the same outfit at the time when he burgled the restaurant. The defendant was therefore arrested.

7.  His case first appeared on 17 March 2017 in the Magistracy where the court further adjourned it to 13 April 2017 for mention while admitting the defendant to bail, but the defendant absconded, and consequently a warrant for his arrest was issued.

8.  Two and a half months later on 26 June 2017, the defendant was once again apprehended. He told the officer that he had mistaken the hearing date to be 17 April 2017, and the reason he did not turn himself in afterwards because he did not want to be taken into custody again.

9.  The defendant has 5 previous convictions none of which is similar to the present offences. His last conviction is possession of offensive weapon for which he was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment in August 2017.

10.  The defendant is a divorcee whose 12-year-old daughter is living with the defendant’s mother in a place separate from the defendant. The court heard that the defendant was a decoration worker at the time of the offence, as there was not enough work to go around, he committed the crime due to financial reasons.  Counsel said the defendant sold off the stolen items for one-tenth of their value, i.e. $2,000.

11.  In his letter to the court, the defendant expressed his remorse for what he did and asked for leniency so that he can be released sooner to look after his young daughter and his aging mother.

12.  Counsel for the defendant submitted that there aren’t any aggravating features in the case – no one was injured or alarmed, no breaking-in tools were used to gain entry – the door could easily be pushed open, and the defendant only picked up the screwdriver from the site. 

13.  Given the facts of the present case, I take 30 months as starting point and since he had absconded, his plea to the burglary could not be a timely one, and for that matter, I’ll only give him 25% instead of the usual 33.3% discount. The starting point is therefore reduced to 22 months.   

14.  For the absconding charge, he had remained at large for 2 and a half months before being re-arrested, and I take 3 months as starting point and this time his plea is a timely one, so he is entitled to the usual one-third discount. After giving the appropriate discount, the starting point is reduced to 2 months.

15.  The two offences are separate and distinct and even taking into account the totality principle, I do not think it would be too harsh to order the terms to run consecutively to each other, thus the total term is one of 24 months’ imprisonment.