HKSAR v. WONG WAI CHUN

DCCC513/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 513 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of attempted burglary and another count of possession of offensive weapons in a public place, namely, a knife and a cutter.

2.  At around 9.30 pm on 12 March 2010, PW1 was at her home watching TV in Tai Kei Ling Tsuen, Yuen Long.  She suddenly heard some noises of metal hitting against each other from outside.  She went to the balcony of her home and saw a male with a bike outside the main gate of a residential detached one-storey village house at No.549, Tai Kei Ling Tsuen (the “Premises”).  The male fled upon hearing the dog’s barking.  PW1 then made a report to the police.

3.  At around 10.10 pm, the police officers arrived and found some scratch marks on the padlock of the main gate of the Premises. At around 10.25 pm, the police officers saw the Defendant riding on a bike outside No.565, Tai Kei Ling Tsuen which was about 30 metres from the Premises. Upon seeing the police officers, the Defendant looked nervous, stopped the bike and tried to turn around with a view to flee. The police officers immediately approached the Defendant and then intercepted him outside No.566, Tai Kei Ling Tsuen.

4.  Upon a body search of the Defendant, one hammer, three screwdrivers, two pairs of pliers, one fruit knife with the blade 15 cm in length (“the Knife”) and one cutter (“the Cutter”) were found in his possession.

5.  The police officer verbally cautioned the Defendant.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted, amongst other things, that:

(i) the hammer, the screwdrivers, the pliers and the Knife and the Cutter belonged to him and he had tried to use these items to hit open the padlock of the main gate of the Premises a moment ago but failed;

(ii) when asked why he wanted to hit open the padlock, the Defendant replied that he wanted to break into the Premises with intent to steal valuables inside;

(iii) when asked why he had the Knife and the Cutter, the Defendant replied that since he was afraid of being assaulted by the villagers, he possessed them for the purpose of self-defence.

6.  The police officer then arrested the Defendant. Under caution, the Defendant responded that he was in need of money and begged for a chance. 

7.  In a video recorded interview conducted subsequently in the police station, the Defendant made similar admissions.

8.  The Defendant is aged 36.  He has 10 previous convictions with 5 related to theft.  His last conviction was related to a theft offence and he was sentenced on 15 March 2010 to a term of 4 months’ imprisonment, and he is now serving that 4 months’ sentence.

9.  According to Miss Lau, solicitor for the Defendant, the Defendant is a drug addict.  He was unemployed before his arrest and he was relying on CSSA for his living. 

10.  For the attempted burglary offence, it related to a domestic premises, and the normal starting point for such type of offence is 3 years’ imprisonment.  At this stage there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to use the offensive weapons for the purpose of committing the burglary.  So I would ignore that factor and would not increase the starting point further. 

11.  Given the Defendant’s one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence for Charge 1 would be one of 2 years’ imprisonment. 

12.  For the offence in Charge 2, I would adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment.  As there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to use those weapons for the purpose of the commission of burglary, the sentence should in principle run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1. 

13.  Since the Defendant pleads guilty to the charge, I would give the Defendant one-third discount and so the sentence for Charge 2 is 4 months’ imprisonment.

14.  Although the sentence should in principle run consecutively, taking into account the totality principle, I would only order 2 months of the sentence in Charge 2 to run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1, making a total of 26 months’ imprisonment, and such sentence should run consecutive to the sentence that the Defendant is now serving.  This is the sentence I impose in the present case.