HKSAR v. CHAN WAI PING

DCCC524/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 524 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.

2.  Both offences were committed on the same day, 25 November last year and in the same building.  The building was situated on Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long.  At the time of the offences there was scaffolding outside the building and this facilitated the access of the defendant to the two flats which were on the 7th and the 8th floor of the building.  At that time both of the flats were not occupied, the occupants had gone out to work, and both premises were entered via insecure windows.

3.  The defendant had a rucksack with him in which he put the items which he stole.  The total value of items stolen was $11,490. None of that property has been recovered.  What led to the defendant being arrested was that his palm print was found inside one of the flats. 

4.  Enquiries revealed that on the day of the burglary, the defendant had come into Hong Kong at just after 10 o’clock in the morning via Lok Ma Chau and he left later the same day at 5 past 5.   The defendant was arrested when he came back to Hong Kong on 1 April; he was arrested as he entered Hong Kong.

5.  He told the police that he was living in Shenzhen and that he came on 25 November to Hong Kong and committed both of the burglaries.  He frankly admitted that he took a minibus to Yuen Long looking for premises to burgle and he had with him a rucksack in which he put the stolen items.  He said that he disposed of the stolen items and the money on the mainland. 

6.  I am told in mitigation that the defendant is 33 years of age and he has one previous conviction.  That was some time ago in 2003 for attempted theft from a vehicle, he was given 120 hours’ community service.

7.  The defendant was born in Hong Kong and educated to Secondary 3 standard.  He has worked variously as a transportation worker in a logistics company previously, but in 2006 he became unemployed.  He originally lived with his parents and sister in Tsing Yi, but he married in 1998 and moved to a public housing estate.   And he has one son from that marriage.  He and his wife were divorced in 2002 and he moved to Shenzhen. 

8.  The defendant has written a letter to the court expressing remorse for his involvement in these offences and says that whilst in custody he has gained insight into the situation and resorts to stay away from crime once he is released.

9.  The offences to which the defendant has pleaded guilty, the offences are serious; they are burglaries of residential premises.   And, fortuitously, when the premises were entered, they were not occupied.  No damage was caused inside the premises but they were ransacked.

10.  It was urged upon me that there were no aggravating features in this case, the burglaries were not professionally organized and no equipment was used, and the defendant deliberately chose the time of day to enter the premises thinking that it would be less likely that he would encounter any residents inside the premises.      

11.  The starting point for offences of this kind is 3 years’ imprisonment.  I propose to adopt that starting point for each of the offences and reduce each by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.

12.  I am required to consider the question of totality. A general rule is that for separate offences, the sentences would run consecutively.  I note, however, that these burglaries were committed one after the other at the same building.  I therefore propose to order that 6 months of the sentence on Charge 2 should run consecutively to the sentence on the 1st charge.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for 2 years and 6 months.