HKSAR v. NG YUEN TAK

 DCCC419/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 419 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary and one charge of theft.

2.  The facts which are admitted reveal that on 7 February 2010, the victim of the 4th charge had placed her rucksack inside the Hong Kong Polytechnic University building and had left it unattended. When she returned to the room where she had placed the rucksack 2 hours later, she found the rucksack missing. Inside the rucksack was a wallet with cash of about $3,000, six visa cards, three bank cards, one Octopus card, a Hong Kong Identity card, a home visit permit, and a staff card.

3.  The CCTV recordings of the Hong Kong Polytechnic captured a male person taking away the rucksack, so the victim reported to the police and subsequently on the 26 February this year the defendant was arrested.

4.  None of the stolen property was recovered.

5.  The defendant was interviewed under caution, and he admitted having also committed the two other burglaries, that is Charges 1 and 2, and also the theft charge in Charge 3.

6.  The Charge 1, the missing item was a notebook computer which was worth about US$2,000, and he said he sold it to a second-hand computer dealer in Shum Shui Po for HK$1,000.

7.  In Charge 2, the item stolen was a notebook computer and again, the defendant had sold it for $2,700.

8.  Charge 3, the items were not valuable in that they were personal items, and the defendant said he had discarded the bag and the items therein.

9.  As for Charge 4, the defendant said he took the cash of $3,000 and discarded all the other stolen items. He had spent all the money that he had obtained.

10.  The owners of the properties were located subsequently, and according to the victim in Charge 2, his notebook computer was worth HK$10,366.

11.  The defendant is aged 47 and has a poor criminal record. He has 24 previous convictions, of which 20 were similar. He was last discharged from prison on 14 December 2009 and he committed the present offences almost immediately. The first offence was in January 2010.

12.  In mitigation, Mr Szeto submits that the defendant is very remorseful, and as a sign of his remorse, it can be seen that he voluntarily admitted to the two burglary charges in Charges 1 and 2, and the theft charge in Charge 3 without being questioned about them, and the reason for that is that the defendant is a changed man. He left prison in December 2009 and found that he had no home to go to. He applied for CSSA, but he was not granted it because he had no permanent address. He was then taken in by a church group and provided with temporary housing, and that the defendant now wishes to apologise to the victims.

13.  Mr Szeto correctly pointed out that for burglary of non-domestic premises, the guideline is that the starting point for sentence would be 2½ years’ imprisonment for each burglary charge. Of course, an aggravating feature would be that there are several burglaries on this occasion.

14.  However, I do take into account the fact that the defendant himself disclosed the commission of Charges 1 and 2, and 3. Therefore, some credit should be given to him.

15.  I had considered whether to increase the starting point because of the fact that the defendant has time and time again committed the same offence and it seems that his previous sentences were not sufficient to deter him. However, I do take into account that he voluntarily disclosed his commission of Charges 1 to 3. So on this occasion, I will not increase the starting point.

16.  But in order to sentence, I do have to look at the overall criminality and consider the totality. Having considered the facts in this case, the defendant’s background, I sentence the defendant in the following way.

17.  For Charges 1, 2, and 4, the starting point is 30 months on each charge as a starting point, reduced to 20 months because of the defendant’s plea.

18.  On Charge 3, I do take into account the fact that although it is a simple theft charge, the victim’s personal items were never recovered, nor was the bag, so I consider that a starting point of 3 months is appropriate, reduced to 2 months because of the defendant’s plea.

19.  Having considered the totality principle, I sentence the defendant on Charge 1 to 20 months’ imprisonment; on Charge 2, to 20 months’ imprisonment, both to be served concurrently. On the 3rd charge, the 2 months will be consecutive to the 20 months for Charges 1 and 2, thus making a total of 22 months. And on the 4th charge, 20 months, 15 months will be consecutive to the sentence of 22 months, so giving it a total of 37 months.

20.  So it will be the defendant goes to prison for 37 months, which is 3 years 1 month.