HKSAR v. LAU KA FAI, COFFEE

DCCC 538/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 538 OF 2013

____________

____________

_____________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_____________________

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to five charges of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 (charges 1, 2, 3, 4 & 8).

2.  Between the 29 November 2012 and 23 February 2013 the defendant burgled four different domestic premises, all of which were under renovation at the time.  On each occasion the defendant stole the equipment used by the renovation workers, including drills, jackhammers, grinders, electric guns and a welding machine, to the total value of $34,900 (charges 1-4). 

3.  At about 1700 hours on the 18 March this year the police saw the defendant wandering in Mongkok and followed him all the way to Wanchai.  At about 1950 hours the defendant was seen entering Yau Kwong Building on Hennessey Road.  About 20 minutes later when leaving the building the defendant was intercepted by the police and found in possession of various decoration tools, valued at $5,350.  The defendant admitted he stole the equipment from a flat which was under renovation (charge 8). 

4.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Miss Lee on behalf of the defendant, including that the defendant was fully cooperative with the police admitting all offences.  Miss Lee asks for a lighter sentence on account of this cooperation.  The fact the defendant freely confesses at an early stage to the offences and subsequently pleads guilty is to be subsumed within the one-third discount (see HKSAR v Pakit Joni CACC 10/2013).

5.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment (see Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).  Having viewed the photographs of each of the premises burgled and Mr Wong having confirmed none of the premises were occupied at the time of the burglaries I am satisfied a lower starting point of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment for each offence is appropriate (see for example HKSAR v Yeung Kwok Sang CACC 4/2006).

6.  The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, having multiple convictions for offences of dishonesty, including two for burglary in 2008 for which he was sentenced in the District Court to a total of 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. Applying the principles in HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830 I increase the starting point of each offence by 3 months to 2 years and 9 months imprisonment.

7.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 1 year and 10 months imprisonment.

Totality

8.  In Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi the court said that where the offences were committed in different premises against different victims on different dates consecutive sentences should be imposed.  The burglaries were committed against five different victims in Sham Shui Po, Mongkok, Kowloon City, Tsim Sha Tsui and Wanchai on five different dates over a period of almost four months. 

9.  Whilst not sophisticated burglaries they were clearly planned.  The defendant using his knowledge that renovation workers would leave door keys outside the units under renovation targeted premises under renovation in order that he could steal valuable renovation equipment.

10.  In the circumstances I am satisfied a total sentence to be served by the defendant of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment is appropriate, which sentence properly reflects the defendant’s criminality on the five charges.

Sentence

11.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty he is convicted and sentenced as follows:

CHARGE 1 – 1 YEAR AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT;

CHARGE 2 – 1 YEAR AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT;

6 MONTHS CONSECUTIVE AND 16 MONTHS CONCURRENT TO CHARGE 1;

CHARGE 3 – 1 YEAR AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT;

6 MONTHS CONSECUTIVE AND 16 MONTHS CONCURRENT TO CHARGES 1 & 2;

CHARGE 4 – 1 YEAR AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT;

6 MONTHS CONSECUTIVE AND 16 MONTHS CONCURRENT TO CHARGES 1, 2 & 3;

CHARGE 8 – 1 YEAR AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT;

6 MONTHS CONSECUTIVE AND 16 MONTHS CONCURRENT TO CHARGES 1, 2, 3 & 4;

TOTAL SENTENCE TO BE SERVED IS 3 YEARS AND 10 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.