HKSAR v. SO CHI PING

DCCC 651/2023

[2024] HKDC 373

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 651 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.

2.  PW one was the staff of Pet Empire Ltd, at around 10:55 am on 11 April 2023, PW1 returned to the shop and found the safe (value at HK $5,000 and contained $120,000 cash in it)  were missing.  $30,000 cash in the drawer were also missing.

3.  The back entrance door was priced open and its repairing cost was $50,000.

4.  CCTV of the shop showed that at about 5:33 am in the morning, the defendant forced open the shop’s rear entrance and entered the shop.  As the defendant noticed the CCTV camera in the shop, the defendant used the piece of clothing on his head to cover most part of his face.

5.  The defendant was in the shop for about three minutes.

6.  A street shop CCTV footage at about 5:58 am on the same day, showed the defendant appeared in the vicinity, but he had changed his clothing.  The defendant also carried a bag containing a rectangular object which resembled the shape of the stolen safe.

7.  The defendant was arrested on 13 April 2023. Under caution, the defendant admitted he committed the burglary offence and stole around $28,000. He opened the safe by using a screwdriver, all the money have been spent.

Criminal record

8.  The defendant has a list of 29 criminal records from 1985 to 2021.

9.  Between 2016 to 2021, there were 12 burglary records, and 2 attempted burglary offenses.  He committed the present offence six months after his release in November 2022.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is now 56 years old.  He was divorced in 2019.  Before the present offence, the defendant lived with his 2 elder brothers and relied on their financial support as he did not obtain CSSA from the government.

11.  He originally disputed the stolen amount and price open of the back door of the shop.  He now admitted to the Prosecution case in full without holding a Newton hearing.  He is entitled to the usual 1/3 discount after plea.

12.  The Defence withdrew the 2 cases cited in the mitigation bundle as they are different in nature and have no bearing in the present case:-

HKSAR v So Kim Loi DCCC 205/2018

HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong CACC 414/2007

Sentence

13.  It is well settled that for a non-domestic burglary case, the usual starting point is 2½ years.

14.  According to the case of HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC  338/2007 that the starting point can adjust upward if there are aggravating circumstances.  In the present case, the defence accepted that there are aggravating factors:-

(A)  the defendant is a repeated offender and he committed the present offence six months after his release from prison. He is a professional burglar.

(B)  he used tools to open the safe and the back entrance door was priced open.

(C)  he used a piece of clothing to cover his head, when he noticed CCTV camera in the shop, he tied the piece of clothing to cover most part of his face.

(D)  the offence was also premeditated as he has clothing to change after he left the shop.

(E)  he targeted at street front shop and aimed at cashier counter ($30,000)  and a safe which contained $120,000.

15.  It is necessary to adjust the starting point upwards as previous sentences have no deterrent effect on him.

16.  Enhancement of the sentence is also necessary in order to reflect the gravity of the offense.

17.  In such circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 30 months and adjust the sentence upward for another 12 months.  That arrives at 42 months (30 + 12), given the 1/3 discount, the sentence comes down to 28 months.

Sentence

18.  The defendant is order to serve a period of 28 months’ imprisonment.