HKSAR v. ZHANG RONGCHANG

DCCC 659/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 659 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  The burglary was committed on 30 May 2013 at a construction site of a residential building under construction at Sai Wan Terrace.  At about 11 pm that day you had climbed over the scaffolding installed near the hillside to enter into the building where construction was being conducted.  Whilst in there you stole many construction materials which are very fully particularized in the charge but they included material such as copper elbows, cables, metal adaptors, copper pipes, copper and screws. 

3.  The total value of the items you stole was $16,551. 

4.  The police had observed you leaving the premises, followed you and eventually intercepted you. 

5.  Upon arrest, you admitted that you had stolen these items from the construction site out of greed.

6.  Your solicitor, Mr Lok, has mitigated on your behalf today.  I have taken into account all that he has had to say.

7.  He has submitted that there is little he can say for you in mitigation but for the fact that you have pleaded guilty, shown your remorse at the very outset and that, as admitted to the police by you, you committed this offence out of greed.

8.  You are 45 years of age and have two previous convictions, one of unlawful remaining in Hong Kong committed in 1988 and one of breach of condition of stay in 1999. 

9.  You came from China and were in Hong Kong on a Chinese Two-way Permit.  You were granted permission to stay for 7 days as from 29 May 2013.  You have come to Hong Kong and committed a crime. There is no evidence that you had premeditated this crime, but as can be seen from your record of interview you came to Hong Kong for sightseeing and to find a job.  As I am sure, you know you are not entitled to work here as a Two-way Permit holder.  The court has also shown disapproval to people who come to Hong Kong to commit crime. 

10.  Burglary is a serious offence. I have no doubt that you have been advised by your solicitor that this warrants an immediate term of imprisonment. 

11.  Mr Lok and Miss Tam, the public prosecutor, have both accepted that although these were residential premises, the premises were under construction and was a construction site at that time.

12.  Mr Lok has submitted the case of HKSAR v Yeung Kwok Sang CACC4/2006 where the court there adopted a starting point of 2½ years for premises which were under construction.  I accepted that the tariff for domestic premises is not appropriate for this type of burglary and take the starting point of 2½ years usually taken for non-domestic premises. 

13.  Defendant, in those circumstances had I convicted you after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.  However, you have pleaded guilty, saved the court time, shown your remorse and that term shall be reduced to one of 20 months’ imprisonment to which you shall be so sentenced.