HKSAR v. CHEN WEI ZHONG

DCCC391/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 391 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of two charges of burglary, the first committed on 13 May last year and the second committed on 1 March this year, both in the same street in houses which were adjacent to each other in Pat Heung in the New Territories.  The defendant resides with his family on the mainland.  He came to Hong Kong on a two-way permit, and committed these two offences while on that two-way permit.

2.  On 13 May last year, he turned up in the vicinity of the hut in question in Fan Kam Road in Pat Heung and told the householder, a Madam Chan, that he was hungry and he would like to take a rest in her hut.  She was kind enough to respond to that request and she let him into the hut and gave him some bread and water.  The defendant took advantage of her kindness by entering her bedroom and stealing a wallet containing HK$20,000 and a further $1,000 in cash.

3.  About 10 months later, on 1 March this year, the defendant entered the adjacent house, the subject of the 2nd charge, in Fan Kam Road in Pat Heung and he stole the property as listed in the charge, namely, a notebook computer, monitor and two wallets which were valued at about $6,700 in total. 

4.  On 5 March, the defendant was intercepted at a bus station by a police officer who searched him and found one of the wallets and a home visit permit which had been stolen from the second premises.  Both after his arrest and subsequently in interview, the defendant denied the offences and claimed he had been given the items by a friend.  However, he was later identified at an identification parade by the householders of both establishments, and a fingerprint was lifted from the second house, which matched the defendant’s.

5.  He is 40 years old and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  Not much can be said on behalf of the defendant, except of course it is always an important factor that he does have a clear record. 

6.  The fact that the defendant committed the offences in the hope of making some money to contribute to his father’s medical expenses is no sort of excuse or mitigation at all.  Like all other members of the community, he is obliged to find the money he needs from lawful sources. 

7.  The well-established starting point for burglary of domestic premises, which both of these premises were, is 3 years’ imprisonment after trial, and I can see no reason at all on the facts of this case to depart from that guideline.  In return for his plea of guilty and co-operation, the defendant is entitled to the normal one-third discount which reduces the starting point to 2 years, which is the sentence I impose on the 1st charge.

8.  Similarly, on the 2nd charge, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment which is reduced to 2 years in return for his plea of guilty and co-operation (also taking into account his clear record).  That is the sentence I impose on the 2nd charge, of which I order 1 year to be concurrent with the sentence imposed on the 1st charge and 1 year consecutive, making a total of 3 years’ imprisonment altogether.