HKSAR v. CHUNG YAU FUK

DCCC1164/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1164 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant appears before me today on one charge of burglary being on domestic premises.  He has pleaded guilty to such matter and admitted the facts.

2.  Shortly, they are, the victim and the defendant appear to live in the same block or same lot of premises, albeit in different rooms.  Whilst the victim left some items including a ring in his cabinet while he went to sleep, he left the door of his premises open.  He woke up subsequently and found the ring had gone.  He did enquire of the defendant who said he did not know where it was, and so PW1, the victim, reported the matter to police.

3.  The police checked a pawn shop and did find the ring and the defendant had in fact pawned it and left his personal details with the pawnbroker.

4.  As a result, the police went and arrested and cautioned the defendant.  He admitted stealing the ring and asked for a chance.  He said he had pawned it for $800.

5.  The victim identified the ring as being his.

6.  As I say, the defendant has admitted those facts.

7.  A record has been produced which shows seven sets of items.  Many of those items relate to dishonesty.  I am told that he is currently serving a sentence of 16 weeks and that was as a result of his last conviction on 18 December 2008.

8.  I am informed and have noted that previous suspended sentences that he had been on were activated on the last occasion and that is why the sentence was 16 weeks.

9.  The record has been admitted by the defendant.

10.  Mitigation has followed in which I am told that he is 45 years old and married.  He has 18-year-old twins.  The reason he landed in trouble on this occasion is because he is addicted or is a heavy gambler.  He owed about $70,000 to $80,000 to various institutions and/or loan sharks.  It was a result of that that he actually was asked to move out of the premises by his wife.  He did gain a degree, a Polytechnic qualification in 1983, and I am told that he maintained a job for 25 years with Chubb Services but unfortunately his services were terminated.

11.  He also has given me a letter from the Family Service Caritas Hong Kong and although it is in Chinese, the contents or the gist of the contents have been explained to me.  He has put that he has attempted to kick his habit because he did in fact enrol in the course on 20 September 2008.

12.  On this occasion the door was open and the defendant was tempted and did commit the offence.  There was no weapon or any violence used, no injury caused, and in fact the ring that was pawned for $800 was recovered.

13.  The higher courts have said that for burglary of domestic premises a starting point of three years is the appropriate one.  That can be increased if there are elements of aggravation present, which are not present here.  I do take that starting point and the defendant will get the full credit for his plea of guilty.

14.  Accordingly, for this offence the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  That sentence of course is consecutive to his present sentence.