HKSAR v. CHUI KWONG KIT

DCCC 1138/2017

[2018] HKDC 794

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1138 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 11 charges on this indictment, and in summary of that, there is one count of obtaining property by deception; one count of attempting to obtain property by deception; six counts of burglary, five of which related to domestic premises; two counts of theft; and finally, a count of possession of dangerous drugs. There is a summary provided of those charges, together with details of them, in the facts agreed by the defendant.

2.  The offences occurred between 28 March 2017 and 8 August 2017, the 1st offence being on 28 March 2017:  a burglary at a premises in what is described as Lotus Tower in Kwun Tong Garden Estate, where the owner or the resident of the property had left a backpack on a chair, but the metal gate was closed, but unlocked.  The defendant entered into the premises; took the backpack, together with its contents.  One of the contents was a credit card which was then used on 29 March 2017 to obtain some spa vouchers and ferry tickets to Macau; and then, on 2 April 2017, in an attempt to obtain an iPhone model 7, which is valued at about $6,000.

3.  We then move on to the 4th offence, which is another burglary, again at Lotus Tower, a similar modus operandi, where a bag was stolen, with its contents, valued at some $8,000, the bag being left in the living room, and the premises being entered by the defendant and the bag being taken.

4.  The 5th charge:  another domestic premises burglary, again at Lotus Tower; the flat being left closed, but unlocked, and the defendant entering, taking a white Samsung model tablet computer, valued at some $2,700, and a bag.

5.  The 6th charge is a theft, where the owner, again at Lotus Tower, had left his key in the door, the key with a key bag containing some items.  The defendant stole those, whilst passing, no doubt.

6.  The 7th offence is another burglary on 8 July 2017, which is a burglary from a commercial premises, a restaurant in a shopping centre in Yau Tong in Kowloon.  The defendant had entered there and taken two cartons of cigarettes and $200 worth of bank notes.

7.  The 8th offence is another burglary committed between 15 and 17 July 2017 at a premises again in Lotus Tower.  It is a residential premises, but it was being renovated, and what was stolen was various construction tools worth about $11,000‑odd.

8.  The 9th charge is a further burglary at a residential premises in Lotus Tower where a wallet and belongings worth $1,150 were taken.  The front door and metal gate to the premises had been left unlocked, the defendant entering and taking those items.

9.  The 10th offence, on 8 August 2017:  a further theft of a wallet that had been left in a backpack in an electrical room on the ground floor of Hollywood Plaza, where a wallet was taken with belongings worth some $1,600.

10.  The final offence, on 8 August 2017, occurred when the defendant, after he had been arrested, was searched at Mong Kok Police Station, where a fairly smallish quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride - that is, “Ice” - was found on his body; a total of 0.56 grammes of the drug, valued at $229.

11.  The defendant’s background is he is now 27 years old.  He is educated up to Form 4 in Hong Kong; was a cook, but was unemployed at the time of his arrest and the time of these offences.  He lives with his mother, and I am told that he has a girlfriend and a son by that girlfriend, although they are not currently in a committed relationship.

12.  As far as his criminal record is concerned, he was placed on probation in 2007 for theft, which was confirmed when there was a breach of that probation order in 2008; finally convicted of theft, and received a suspended sentence of 4 months in 2013.  So this crime spree we can see from the defendant in 2017 is somewhat out of character for him, and it is certainly his first offences of this nature of persistent burglarising of properties in this area.

13.  As far as the other mitigation put forward by the defendant, he says he is remorseful.  The premises were -- a lot of the burglaries were of the nature of a kind of walk‑in burglary:  opportunistically taking advantage of unlocked doors; no tools were used; no actual damage to the property.  Items were taken.  As far as the credit card offences are concerned, they were used for minor -- to purchase items of fairly small value, and there is no syndicated or international element at all.

14.  It is common ground, I believe, that the starting points for sentence in relation to these offences of burglary for the residential premises would be of 3 years’ imprisonment, and for the restaurant or commercial premises would be 2½ years’ imprisonment.  There are other offences of theft and the drug offence.  Again, starting points for sentence would range in the region of 18 months’ imprisonment.  The real concern of the court in this case, of course, would be the overall totality of sentence that should be imposed, because there are a large number of burglaries committed over a period of time and accompanying thefts and drug offences.

15.  The other point made in mitigation is that a number of the offences came to light as a result of admissions made by the defendant, and it is said that that should provide for some diminution from the overall sentence of imprisonment.

16.  What I shall do at this stage is declare the starting points and sentences on the relative charges, then I will proceed towards how the totality should be calculated.

17.  On the 1st charge, there will be a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years for a plea of guilty.

On the 2nd charge, again, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

On the 3rd charge, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

On the 4th charge, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

On the 5th charge, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

On the 6th charge, a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

On the 7th charge, a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

On the 8th charge, a starting point of 3 years, reduced to 2 years.

On the 9th charge, a starting point of 3 years, reduced to 2 years.

On the 10th charge, a starting point of 18 months, reduced to 12 months.

On the 11th charge, a starting point of 18 months, reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

18.  Having considered all these offences, I consider the overall appropriate sentence would be in the region of 52 months’ imprisonment.  However, I do take into account the mitigation put forward by Mr Ho in relation to the defendant’s provision of information and the extensive admissions made by him, which made the job of prosecuting this case much easier, and I will reduce that sentence by 4 months for that assistance given by the defendant, which will lead to an overall sentence of imprisonment for all these offences of 48 months’ imprisonment.

19.  I will achieve that figure by ordering the 1st to 5th charges run concurrent to each other, and the 6th to the 11th charges run concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the 1st through to 5th charge.

20.  That leads to an overall total of 4 years’ imprisonment for these offences.