|
DCCC328/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 328 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Wong Wai Keung |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
5 May 2010 at 3.09 pm |
| Present: |
Ms Chan Sze Yan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Wong Chi Kit, Peter instructed by Messrs Cheung, Chan & Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
(2) & (3) Theft (盜竊罪)
(4) Misleading a police officer (提供虛假資料誤導警務人員) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges.
2. The 1st charge is one of burglary. The particulars of the offence are that on 15 October, he entered the bedroom of premises at Fu Yuet House in Fu Cheong Estate and stole therein a considerable amount of property valued at $42,400.
3. The 2nd and 3rd charges are theft offences committed on 24 October and 3 November and in each case the theft was of a mobile phone.
4. The 4th charge is one of misleading a police officer contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance. This was committed on 18 January. The defendant produced a driving licence in the name of a Man Mun-kit to an officer and claimed to be that person.
5. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at about 6 o’clock in the morning of 15 October, a Madam Wong, who is PW1, aged 38, left her residence at Room 507, Fu Yuet House. Before leaving the premises, she locked the door of her bedroom and at those premises she left, sleeping in another bedroom, her 17-year-old son.
6. At about noon the same day the defendant and another man visited the son and was invited to enter into the premises for a casual chat. At 4.30, the son was asked to leave the premises as the defendant wanted to discuss some private matters with the man he brought along. Somewhat surprisingly, the son agreed to that and the defendant and the male remained at the premises.
7. At about 6 pm, the son returned to find that the premises had been burgled. He found that the door of his mother’s bedroom and the doors of the wardrobe had been prised open. Stolen from within was a camera, various items of jewellery, some cash and three wristwatches. The matter was reported to the police and two impressions of the defendant’s left palm were found on the drawer of the wardrobe. Two of the diamond rings were pawned for $1,500 by the defendant at a pawnshop in Shanghai Street on 15 October.
8. The 2nd charge, the facts of that charge are that at 3 o’clock on the afternoon of 24 October in a car park at Lai Kok Estate in Sham Shui Po, the victim in this case, who was aged 12, was stopped by the defendant. He asked the victim if he could borrow his mobile phone, the victim agreed and the defendant then ran off with the phone. The defendant was later positively identified by the victim at an identity parade.
9. The victim of the 3rd charge was a former friend of the defendant. He is aged 19 and had known the defendant since 2006. On 3 November, they were at a games centre when the defendant borrowed the mobile phone of the victim. Ten minutes later, the victim realised the defendant had not returned the phone to him and the defendant was out of contact since then. That victim positively identified the defendant at an identification parade.
10. On 18 January in the afternoon the defendant was intercepted by a police officer at an MTR in Mong Kok. He was stopped when he attempted to use a children’s discount ticket at the station and he was asked for proof of identity. The defendant produced an expired driving licence in the name of a Man Mun-ki and claimed he was that person.
11. The second officer arrived and the defendant again produced the driving licence and claimed he was Man Mun-ki. Since he failed to produce any valid proof of identity, he was taken to the police station for further investigation.
12. After his fingerprints had been taken it was realised who the defendant actually was and it was realised he was wanted in connection with the burglary case.
13. He was subsequently interviewed in connection with the various offences. He remained silent in connection with the burglary offence and admitted the other offences. I am told in relation to the theft offences that the mobile phone in the 2nd charge is worth $1,600 and in the 3rd charge, $3,200. So the total value of stolen property is slightly in excess of $47,000, of which only $10,500 worth of property has been recovered.
14. The defendant does not have the advantage of a clear record. He has appeared in court on seven previous occasions in respect of 12 offences. He has previously been convicted of offences of burglary and theft. There are two burglaries and two theft convictions recorded on his record. In January 2009, for two offences of theft, he was sent to prison for 6 months.
15. The defendant is 22 years of age. He was born in China and he was educated to Primary 5 level on the Mainland. He was employed as a waiter earning some $7,500 per month. I am told he was last released from prison in May 2009. He is single and lives with his parents. His father is aged 60 and trades in electronic goods, and his mother is 59 and is a cleaning worker. He has an elder brother and sister, and a younger brother who works as a baker.
16. I am told that the reason for the commission of the offence was that the defendant was in financial difficulties. He owed money from before he was last sentenced to prison and whilst he was in prison the amount of that debt increased to $30,000. I am told that he was being pressed by the debt collectors, who were visiting his home and harassing him and his family. It was under those circumstances that he committed the offence.
17. In mitigation, it was urged upon me that in respect of the burglary that, although the offence was committed in domestic premises, the defendant was well aware that there was nobody inside the premises and there was therefore no risk of any confrontation with any occupants of the household.
18. In connection with the two mobile phone thefts. Again, there was no violence used in the commission of those offences. However, I note in respect of the 2nd charge the victim was a youth of only 12 years of age.
19. The defendant had gained access to the burgled premises as a friend and he was there on trust and he abused that trust. The amount of property stolen was in excess of $40,000; $10,500 dollars worth of property has been recovered from pawn shops.
20. The defendant has previous convictions for burglary. He has two convictions for attempted burglary and one for a full burglary. The defendant was only released from prison in May of last year. I have taken into account the letter written by the defendant and he asks for leniency and states he is remorseful for the inconvenience and anxiety that he has brought to his family, particularly his mother, who has been visiting him in prison.
21. Given the defendant’s record and the amount of property stolen in this burglary I see no reason to depart from the usual guideline sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment as a starting point and that will be reduced to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea.
22. In respect of Charges 2 and 3, I take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months in each case to reflect the guilty plea. For the 4th charge, I take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 months to reflect the guilty plea.
23. I have considered the question of totality. As regards Charge 2, 3 months of that sentence will run consecutive to Charge 1. As regards Charge 3, 3 months of that sentence will run consecutive to the previous two sentences. In respect of the 4th charge, the 2 months’ sentence of imprisonment will run consecutive. The total period of imprisonment will therefore be 32 months.
|