HKSAR v. PUI KAM CHUEN

DCCC603/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 603 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)&(4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.   The burgled office “the office” was located at the Mezzanine Floor of Wah Chai Seafood Stall, Stall B3, Aberdeen Wholesale Fish Market, No. 102 Shek Pai Wan Road, Aberdeen, Hong Kong.  Sin Wing-yu, PW1, and Lam Kam-ching, PW2, were the owner and clerk of Wah Chai Seafood Stall respectively.

3.   At about 0615 hours, on 10 May 2012, PW2 placed her handbag containing one wallet, her identity card, her home visit permit, four bank cards and four membership cards in PW2’s name, one key bag with seven keys, one mobile telephone battery, a pair of earphones, seven pens and cash of HK$700 in the office before she locked the door and went out to work.

4.   At about 1015 hours on the same day, PW1 went to the office and found that the door of the office was opened and there were signs of ransacking.  PW1 and PW2 found 33 cheques and two company chops of Wah Chai Seaford Stall and the properties PW2 placed in her handbag were missing.  The case was reported.

5.   A Samsung Galaxy Tab mobile telephone, Exhibit 1, was found on the table outside the office.  This telephone rang several times whilst the police was investigating at the scene.  Both PW1 and PW2 confirmed that Exhibit 1 did not belong to them.  Based on the call record in Exhibit 1, WPC12869 and PW6 noted the incoming call number and called the number with her telephone.  A female answered the phone and then passed the telephone to a male who claimed to be the owner of Exhibit 1.  PW6 thus went to the fish market canteen and found the defendant, who claimed to be the owner of Exhibit 1.  Meanwhile Wong Yat-cheong, PW4, staff of the nearby Ho Tai Seafood Stall arrived at the canteen and handed a black bag, Exhibit 2, to the defendant.  PW6 searched Exhibit 2 and found the following stolen properties: (1) PW2’s Home Visit Permit; (2) four membership cards in PW2’s name; (3) one key bag with seven keys; and (4) one mobile telephone battery.

6.   The defendant was arrested.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview the defendant stated that:

(1) Both Exhibits 1 and 2 belong to him.

(2) He went to Ka Ming Fish Market near Wah Chai Seafood to have a drink with is friends at about 0730 hours on the same day. He was drunk and fell asleep while he was obeying the call of nature at the beach restaurant underneath Ka Ming Fish Market. When he awoke he found that Exhibit 1 was missing. He then went to the fish market canteen at about 0800 hours. He had also gone to Kah Ming Fish Market to look for Exhibit 1.

(3) He claimed that he had walked past Wah Chai Seafood but he had never gone inside. He also claimed that he had not entered the office. However, later in the interview he admitted that he could have been looking for Exhibit 1 at Wah Chai Seafood Stall and had entered the office.

(4) He stated that he had left Exhibit 2 with someone else while he was using the telephone at the fish market canteen and that he had only left Exhibit 2 once.

(5) He denied having seen the stolen properties which were found inside Exhibit 2. He claimed that he was being fooled.

7.   CCTV recordings captured the defendant entering Wah Chai Seafood Stall at about 0840 hours on the same day.  He was carrying a black bag with him.  PW4 confirmed that at about 1103 hours on the same day he met the defendant, who requested him to keep Exhibit 2 for a while and then walked away.  PW4 had not opened Exhibit 2, nor had he tampered with the contents inside.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

8.   The defendant is 44 years old.  He is divorced, with two sons, who are now being looked after by his mother.  He is now living with his girlfriend.  The defendant used to be employed as a seafood buyer in the Aberdeen Wholesale Market, earning about $20,000 per month.  He used to contribute $3,000 to his family when he was in full-time employment. The defendant has 15 previous convictions, including 10 offences related to dishonesty.  His last conviction for dishonesty was in 1996. 

9.   Counsel submitted that the defendant had an argument with his girlfriend on the day of the offence.  He went to have some beers and then committed the offence.  He now realises that it was very foolish.  A letter purportedly signed by PW1 was submitted, stating that he had forgiven the defendant and urging the court to be lenient. 

Sentence

10.   In passing sentence I have considered everything put forward on the defendant’s behalf.  This is a non-domestic burglary.  In the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors, the conventional starting point is 2½ years, that is 30 months’ imprisonment. 

11.   I note that the defendant has a number of previous convictions relating to dishonesty.  However, those offences were committed some time ago, the last conviction being in 1996.  In the circumstances I adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.  I give the defendant full credit for his guilty plea.  The sentence is reduced to 20 months.