HKSAR v. WONG PING HUNG

DCCC 642/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 642 OF 2014

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1. The defendant (male) (aged 39 years) appeared before me this morning and pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2. The particulars of offence avers that the defendant on the 30^th day of May 2014, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Shop D1307, Ground Floor, Yau Oi Estate Market, Tuen Mun, New Territories, stole therein one electric saw, one helmet and two pieces of garments.

Facts

3. According to the summary of facts which has been admitted by the defendant, the shop in question was under renovation at the time of the offence.  It was surrounded by wooden boards with a wooden door secured by a combination padlock.  Only two renovation workers and their employer knew the password of the padlock.

4. On 30 May 2014, one of the decoration workers had secured the padlock and left the location at around 1600 hours.  He later returned at 1730 hours but found the padlock missing.  An electric saw, a motorcycle helmet and also two pieces of garments belonging to a decoration worker were also found missing.

5. The CCTV footage of the shop captured the defendant entering and leaving the location at around 1700 hours.

6. Subsequently on 6 June 2014, a police officer intercepted the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant freely admitted that he had stolen the saw and broken into the location by force.

7. A house search was subsequently conducted in defendant’s residence and the police managed to retrieve the saw, the helmet and the garments which were all the subject matter of the stolen properties.

The criminal records and the background of the defendant

8. The defendant is now aged 39.  In the past, he had a total of 19 convictions between 1996 to 2011.  In particular, there are two previous similar records: one in 1996 of attempted burglary for which he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and his last conviction in 2011, where in the District Court, he was sentenced to 2 years for the offence of burglary.

9. Apart from these two burglary charges, he had altogether 15 offences relating to dishonesty, a number of theft and attempted theft cases for which he was sentenced to imprisonment as well as the DATC.

10. The defendant has also numerous drugs related offences.

11. According to the antecedent statement, which was admitted, the defendant was born in Hong Kong and had received an education up to secondary Form 1 level.  He is married but is now divorced and living with his parents in Shan King Estate in Tuen Mun.  He used to be a decoration worker but he was unemployed at the time of the offence.

Mitigation

12. Mr Leung, the solicitor for the defendant, prefaced his submission by appropriately recognising the fact that there was not much he could say on behalf of his client. 

13. Be that as it may, Mr Leung was still able to point out to the court that the shop in question was vacant at the time when the offence was committed and therefore nobody was frightened during the commission of the offence and all of the stolen properties were recovered by the police so the only damages suffered was the combination padlock, which he believed the value was low.

14. All in all, the total value of the properties stolen in this burglary charge is insubstantial.  Mr Leung therefore asked the court to be as lenient as possible.

15. As to the past records of the defendant, Mr Leung stressed the fact that the defendant had received punishment in the past and asked the court not to stress so much on his past records when considering sentence.

Sentencing considerations

16. According to the established authority, in cases relating to non-domestic premises, the starting point for burglary is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.

17. In this case, the defendant committed the burglary on his own.  The defendant admitted that he entered the premises by force but he did not say exactly how he entered the premises so there is no evidence that he had used any tools such as screwdriver or any implement to assist him in gaining entry into the premises.

18. The value of the property stolen was also low and I can see there is no any other aggravating factors or features during the commission of the offence.

19. However, the defendant is a man of many previous records relating to dishonesty and, in particular, two offences relating to burglary.  His previous or last conviction is in 2011. He was sentenced by the District Court for two years imprisonment.  As properly conceded by Mr Leung, the defendant should have known better and he had no excuse in committing the offence again and again.

20. I do accept that what the defendant has done in the past had already been sufficiently punished.  However, for a repeated offender, the court clearly has a duty to consider passing a term of imprisonment of sufficient deterrent effect so as to deter the defendant from repeating the same offence in the future.  The court also has a duty to protect the public from people like the defendant who are just willing to resort to committing the same crime to solve their economic problems.

21. According to Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, the Court of Appeal clearly said that it is the duty of the court to consider imposing a sentence of deterrence in the case of a repeated offender.  For this reason, I consider that I should increase the starting point from 30 months to 36 months.

22. The defendant pleaded guilty for which he will be entitled to the usual one-third discount. 

Sentence

23. Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.