HKSAR v. WONG KA LUNG

 DCCC599/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 599 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to two counts of burglary (Charges 1 and 3).  Upon such guilty plea, the prosecution agrees for Charge 2 to be kept in the court file and I so order.

2.  On 26 November 2008, the occupier of Flat 11, 5th Floor, Mei King Mansion Phase 2, in To Kwa Wan, left his flat with the door and windows secured and locked.  When he returned to Flat 11 in the morning on 18 December 2008, he found the kitchen window was opened and the flat was ransacked.  Upon checking, one Tudor watch and cash of HK$2,000 were missing.  This burglary formed the basis of Charge 1.

3.  At about 2 pm on 23 April 2009, the occupier of Flat 9, 12th Floor, Mei King Mansion Phase 2, left the flat with the door and the windows secured and locked.  When he returned to Flat 9 at about 12.20 am on 24 April 2009, he found the kitchen window was opened and the flat was ransacked.  Upon checking, cash of HK$1,300 and a notebook computer were found missing.  This burglary formed the basis of Charge 3.

4.  During a home search of the defendant on 24 April 2009, a pawnshop ticket was found inside the defendant’s flat and he was arrested a few days later.  With the pawnshop ticket, the police officer retrieved the Tudor watch from a pawnshop.

5.  In the cautioned interview conducted on 28 April 2009, the defendant made the following admissions.  He entered Flat 11 by breaking the window of the flat and he then stole the properties including the Tudor watch.  As he owed his friend money, he went to the pawnshop to pawn the watch.  As he found the kitchen window of Flat 9 remained open, he climbed through the kitchen window and entered the flat.  He then stole the properties including the notebook computer.

6.  The defendant is aged 33.  He has 20 previous convictions with nine related to theft.  The last conviction in 2006 was related to burglary offences.  He committed the present offence shortly after releasing from prison.

7.  According to mitigation advanced by the defendant’s solicitor, the defendant committed the offence because of economic pressure and he is now deeply remorseful for committing the offence.

8.  Burglary is a serious offence.  As these two burglaries were committed in domestic premises, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each offence.  Although the defendant has theft-related convictions in the past, I am prepared to follow the approach of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong, CACC414 of 2007, and not to treat the defendant as a habitual offender.

9.  By reason of the defendant’s plea of guilty, the sentence for Charges 1 and 3 is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

10.  As the two burglaries are two separate offences the sentence should run consecutively in principle.  But having taken into account the totality principle and similar facts in the case of HKSAR v Hui Chi Tong, I will order eight months of the sentence in Charge 3 to run consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1, making a total of 32 months’ imprisonment, and this is the sentence I impose in the present case.