COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilt in the Magistrates’ Court to one charge of burglary contrary to the Theft Ordinance, in that on 3 October 2013 he with another person had entered the Ground Floor, Lot 34B, Chi Fai Path, Tai Mong Tsai Road, Sai Kung, and stole two rings, five necklaces, three pendants, one watch and one camera with bag.
He had also pleaded guilty to a 2nd charge of aggravated burglary and the place of the burglary was at Lot 28A in Chi Fai Path, and this was committed on the same morning as the 1st charge. He has been committed to this court for sentencing.
The facts reveal that on 3 October 2013 the householder left her premises in the early hours at 7.45 am, and when she returned at about 9 am she found her place had been ransacked and discovered that the properties named in the charge were missing. She reported the matter to the police.
On the same day at about 9.10 am, a Filipino domestic helper was working alone at the premises named in the 2nd charge when the accused and a wanted person, which is another male, entered her room and pointed a 12-inch-long fruit knife at her.
The defendant apologised to the helper before he tied her up with adhesive tape. Then they left the premises with the helper’s notebook computer battery and a mobile phone.
The victim subsequently found that her notebook computer battery and mobile phone had been thrown in to the pond outside her premises. Police officers arrived at the scene at about 9.15 am the same day and spotted the defendant and another male near a bus stop in the vicinity. And, I must say, the police response was swift and efficient and resulted in the arrest of the defendant.
Upon a search of the defendant was found his Chinese citizen identity card, a roll of adhesive tape, a 15-inch-long knife and it was, according to victim in the 2nd charge, that was not the same knife that was pointed at her. Also found on the defendant were some jewellery camera which was subsequently identified by the victim in the 1st charge, and a set of remote CCTV set.
The defendant made admissions under caution.
The defendant was subsequently interviewed on video, and he admitted coming into Hong Kong on 27 September 2013 by boat from Nam O, Shenzhen. He admitted that on 3 October morning they waited till the householder had left for work and they then burgled the first premises with a screwdriver prising open the door.
As for the 2nd premises, the defendant said they could not prise open the front door or the windows of the house, so they went to the rear part of the premises and opened an unlocked door and they discovered the helper in the premises. The defendant said that a knife held by his partner, the wanted person, was used to point at the helper and then they tied the helper up with the adhesive tape.
The defendant claimed that they took the victim’s mobile phone and battery away in order to prevent her from calling the police. The defendant said they had observed both premises for three to four days before committing these offences. The remote CCTV set which was seized from him was used to monitor the target premises and made sure that the people had left the premises from the CCTV set.
The defendant was subsequently identified at an identification parade by the victim in the 2nd charge.
The CCTV set seized from the defendant was examined by the telecommunications engineer of the Hong Kong Police Force who confirmed that the handheld AV receiver monitors audio and video signals captured by the two cameras and they are all in good condition. And it was also found that this CCTV set works for a range up to 100 metres, and after charging for 5 hours it works for 13 hours.
Now, looking at the separate charges for sentencing, the aggravating features relating to both charges is that the defendant has five previous convictions in Hong Kong, and one of which was for burglary in 2012 for which he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
So, shortly, after being released from prison, he then came back to Hong Kong with his friend to commit these present offences.
The defendant had been sentenced just shortly before appearing in this court for these offences to remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong, and he was sentenced on 3 December 2013 to 18 months’ imprisonment.
I am informed by Mr Cheung in mitigation that the defendant has lived in Shenzhen for 8 to 10 years, and had unstable income. He is aged 38.
The burglary of domestic premises the sentence is normally three years as a starting point. But in view of the aggravating features in this case, particularly the sophisticated planning and the use of the CCTV equipment to monitor the premises, I consider that together with the defendant’s previous conviction of burglary, the starting point should be raised to four years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd charge of aggravated burglary, I am indebted to Mr Cheung for referring me to the case of Yang Ming and in that case it was observed by Mr Cheung, the Court of Appeal considered that seven years was not excessive for aggravated burglary. In that case, the householder had suffered some cut to his face and arm and had to be treated for his injuries.
Now, in this case although there was no injury, however the victim in the 2nd charge was threatened with a knife and tied up. She must have been very frightened despite the fact that the defendant had apologised. So, I would consider a starting point sentence of six years’ imprisonment.
And I would also mention that the burglary of premises in the Sai Kung area has been on the rise. And it is clear that the use of this remote CCTV cameras would facilitate very easily the intention of people like the defendant who come over from the mainland to commit burglary.
This is the first time I have seen such equipment being used, and I would take this opportunity to say that in the future should this sort of equipment be recovered, I would consider it to aggravate the sentence even beyond the normal.
The starting point of six years here will be reduced by one-third because of the defendant’s plea to four years.
Now, I have to consider the totality principle.
First of all, the 1st count of burglary the defendant is sentenced to two years and eight months, and on the 2nd charge of aggravated burglary he is sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and eight months of that sentence will be concurrent to the 1st charge, and the rest consecutive, making it a total of six years’ imprisonment.
I have also to take into consideration the present sentence he is now serving for a connected charge of unlawful remaining. So, the total sentence of six years’ imprisonment, six months of that will be concurrent to the present sentence he is serving and the rest will be consecutive.