HKSAR v. MANZON MARY GRACE GUEVARRA

DCCC 520/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 520 OF 2014

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. Mary Grace Guevarra Manzon you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 (charge 2).

2. In summary around 4:51 p.m. on the 19 April this year the police intercepted you as you came out of a flat on the 7th floor of a residential building at No. 39 Whampoa Street in Hung Hom. 

3. At the time you were carrying a wooden box containing electrical cord which had been removed from the walls of the flat.  You were also found in possession of various tools including three screwdrivers, a pair of clippers and two torches (see photographs, album 2).

4. Under caution and in a subsequent video interview you admitted the tools were for stealing and that on seeing the flat was vacant you entered and took the box intending to sell the electrical cord.  You said you were not the one who removed the electrical cord from the walls. 

5. In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Chan.  I take into account that you have no previous convictions for burglary.

6. The correct starting point for a single burglary of residential premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment (see Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).  Lower starting points have however been taken where the premises are vacant.

7. The building was largely unoccupied and the flat you came out of had been vacant since the 22 June 2011.  Since March 2014 the wooden door and metal gate to the flat had been left open.  Apart from furniture nothing valuable was left in the flat.

8. Mr Chan submits as the flat was not occupied; there was no breaking and entry and property of little value was stolen, a lower starting point should be adopted. In support Mr Chan relies on the well known case of HKSAR v Chau Man Ying CACC 439/2011 together with two cases in Chinese HKSAR v Shea Pat Chi CACC 196/2012 and HKSAR v Chan Siu Cheong CACC 355/2012 for which agreed summaries have been submitted to court.

9. In Chau Man Ying the appellant was sentenced to 2 years after trial for burglary of a flat in a vacant residential building awaiting redevelopment.  Considering the premises were almost derelict and the value of the property stolen was very low the Court of Appeal substituted a sentence which enabled the appellant’s immediate release.  Taking into account the usual remission for good behaviour this meant the appellant had effectively served a sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

10. Chau Man Ying was cited in both Shea Pat Chi and Chan Siu Cheong where vacant premises were also burgled.  In both these cases the Court of Appeal said 2 years imprisonment was the appropriate starting point.  The distinguishing feature in both cases was that the burglars were also in possession of housebreaking tools which were used to break into the premises. 

11. In the recent case of HKSAR v Lee Chiu Yui CACC 24/2014 the Court of Appeal again held 2 years imprisonment was appropriate where the burglar had with him an array of housebreaking tools when burgling a temporary office which was cleared out with all properties removed and was ready to be demolished. 

12. Mr Chan submits that the present case falls somewhere between the cited cases.  By reason of your possession of tools which you carried for the purpose of stealing I am satisfied the case is more serious than Chau Man Ying.  On the other hand as the tools were not used to gain entry to the flat I accept that the case is less serious than Shea Pat Chi and Chan Siu Cheong.

13. In the circumstances I am satisfied a starting point of 21 months imprisonment is appropriate.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.

Breach of suspended sentence

14. On the 23 January this year in STCC 304/2014 for an offence of breach of condition of stay you were sentenced to 2 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years.  I am satisfied there are no exceptional circumstances whereby it would be unjust to activate the suspended sentence.   

15. The sentence is activated consecutive to the sentence imposed for the burglary. This makes a total sentence to be served by you of 16 months imprisonment which I am satisfied properly reflects your criminality in the two cases.