HKSAR v. CHAN KAM WING

 DCCC892/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 892 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, the first on 15 April this year and the second on 20 June.  The defendant has agreed the facts and I have convicted him of both offences.

2.  The facts insofar as they are relevant to sentence is that on 15 April 2009 at premises Mau Tau Mansion - that is Flat G, 5th Floor, Yuen Long - was burgled.  The occupant, PW1, had left her residence at 6.15 and then had returned at 3.30 and found signs of both prising and ransacking in the premises.  Cash of RMB6,000 and HK$4,600 had been taken and two of the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the metal gate of the flat.

3.  On 20 June 2009 the main gate of the Hung Kee Store had been locked by its owner and when the occupants returned about 2 hours later they again found there had been ransacking inside the store.  What had in fact been ransacked was a room described as a bedroom and some HK$4,300 and RMB1,000 had been taken.

4.  The defendant was arrested on 13 July 2009 and he admitted the burglary at the premises described as “The Store” and he had waited until that premises was empty before he had gone into it. 

5.  The defendant himself is a man who has a number of previous convictions; I am told a total of 26 burglaries, the first committed in 1975.  Most recently there was a number of burglaries occurred in 2003 and 2004 although I am told the 2004 burglary relates to something that occurred in the 1990s.  Counsel says that the defendant has not committed any burglaries for some six years.

6.  The defendant’s antecedents show him to be a man of some 49 years, worked as a welder and a transportation worker and he is described as a drug addict.  The defendant has been to a drug addiction treatment centre in the past.  He is divorced from his wife and has lost contact with her.  He has an elder son and a younger son who are transportation workers.  The defendant lives alone in a hut in the New Territories.

7.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and shown remorse today and clearly sentences of imprisonment will have to be imposed in respect of these offences.  There is some issue on whether the premises of the 2nd charge can properly be described as a commercial premises or a domestic premises.  It would appear to be a commercial premises with living space or domestic space and it was the living space, the bedroom that was ransacked.  I will, in fact, treat both premises as being domestic premises but I do note the defendant has committed his burglaries at a time when he has assured himself that there was no one in the premises.

8.  Because I have treated both these premises as domestic premises the starting point on the 1st and 2nd charge will be 3 years’ imprisonment.  I shall reduce that to 2 years’ imprisonment on each charge to reflect the defendant’s pleas of guilty.

9.  Now, the burglaries occurred some time apart and obviously at least some part of the sentences must be served consecutively but I have regard to what I call the correct overall totality for these sentences.  What I shall order is that 6 months of the 2nd charge run consecutively to the 1st charge and the what would be 18 months will be concurrently or the balance will run concurrently.  This will give an overall total sentence of 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment.