HKSAR v. LEE CHUN CHEUNG

DCCC 516/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 516 OF 2013

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". The burgled premises are 2 occupied residential buildings.

Summary of Facts

2.  Two buildings are situated respectively at Nos.3-4 and No.5 Canal Road East, Causeway Bay ("Building 1" and "Building 2").  They are adjacent to each other but not connected, except on the roof.  However, the door on the roof of Building 2 is locked from the inside.  Hence, a visitor could not go from Building 1 to Building 2 via the roof of both buildings.

3.  Building 1 has no gate at its main entrance.  Building 2 has a gate with a numeric lock at its main entrance.  At the material time, both buildings were surrounded by scaffoldings.  Installation and removal of billboards as well as renovation works on the outer wall of Building 2 were being carried out. 

4.  The unit on the 5^th Floor of Building 2 ("the Unit") was vacant.  Workers went through a window of the Unit which had no glass to remove the billboards on the outer wall.  The removed billboards and tools were stored in the Unit.

5.  About 6:00 pm on 12 December 2012, the workers closed the door of the Unit and left the premises.  About 11:40 pm, police officers saw the defendant walking into Building 1 through its main entrance.  They remained outside to observe the main entrances of Buildings 1 and 2.

6.  About 1:45 am on 13 December, police officers saw the defendant coming out of the main entrance of Building 2.  They stopped him for enquiry.  Upon search, the Police found the following items from the defendant :-

(i) 2 socks, 1 each in the left and right jacket pocket;

(ii) 1 torch in the right jacket pocket; and

(iii) 1 torch connected to a key chain in the shoulder bag.

7.  Under caution, the defendant denied having entered either building and claimed that he was on his way to the MTR station to go home.

8.  The Police later discovered that the door of the Unit was opened.  The workers confirmed that nothing was missing.  The Police also found 2 light blue fragments on the defendant's jacket.  The fragments matched both the colour and elemental composition of the 1^st layer of a 4-layer control wall plaster from the inside wall of the Unit.

9.  The defendant now admits that he entered Buildings 1 and 2 as a trespasser with intent to steal therein.

Mitigation & Sentence

10. The defendant is now 40. He has 10 criminal records involving an "Aggravated Burglary" offence (dated July 2000) and multiple Part I Poison offences. His last conviction is dated May 2013; he was given a DATC Order for "Loitering" and "Possession of Part I Poison". At present, he is still being treated in a DATC.

11. The defendant came to Hong Kong from the mainland in 1982. He received F.1 education in Hong Kong. He is married with a son and a daughter (aged 8 and 6 respectively). The defendant is the sole income source of his family.

12. Defence lawyer Mr. LO submitted that since this case requires forensic evidence to prove the defendant's presence at the Unit, by pleading guilty to the charge, the defendant has saved considerable court time and public resources.

13. Mr. LO also submitted that there are no aggravating features in this case. The defendant was rather an "opportunistic burglar"; he did not and had no intention to enter any of the occupied premises, he was merely trying his luck in the 2 buildings. And at the end, nothing was stolen and no person was alarmed.

14. I do not accept that the present case is an opportunistic burglary. The defendant selected a building which was surrounded by scaffoldings. He went into Building 1 and came out from Building 2. How he managed to do that is not mentioned in the Summary of Facts, but it certainly required some peculiar skills.

15. Although the evidence only shows that the defendantwent into the Unit, which was vacant at the time, the fact that he went into one building and came out from another sufficiently reflects that all other occupied units in both buildings were at risk. He might well have been trying his luck, but what he did was clearly beyond an opportunistic burglar.

16. The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. I accept that there are no aggravating features in this case and I would not raise the starting point because of the defendant's previous similar conviction. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount. The sentence I pass is 2 years' imprisonment.