HKSAR v. RAKKAEW APHICHAT

DCCC 467/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 467 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary. It occurred on 10 March this year at a flat on the 8th Floor of No 169 Fa Yuen Street in Mong Kok. It can be described as a domestic premises burglary.

2.  The defendant has agreed the Summary of Facts, and I have convicted him of the offence.

3.  As far as the Admitted Facts are concerned, the premises burgled is on the 8th Floor of No 169 Fa Yuen Street, Mong Kok.  The burglary occurred in the early afternoon of 10 March this year. At that time, members of the He family were in the premises, some sleeping, some watching television.  The flat had an iron grille, and that was open, but the wooden door into the premises was closed but unlocked.

4.  At about 2.30 in the afternoon one of the members of the family became aware that the defendant was leaving the bedroom that she was in and heading towards the living room.  The defendant told her that he had come into the flat to eat, as he was hungry.

5.  It was discovered that a mobile telephone and $1,500 cash had been taken.  The defendant took these items from a pocket in his trousers and handed them over.  After this, the defendant tried to leave the flat, and a struggle ensued between members of the family and the defendant, and as a result of this struggle one of the members of the family, Madam He, sustained abrasions on her right elbow and forearm.

6.  The police were called, and the defendant was arrested.

7.  The defendant has agreed his antecedent statement.  He was born in Thailand, but educated in Hong Kong.  He is currently unemployed, and in fact is in a drug addiction treatment centre.  His criminal record shows that he has six previous convictions.  He has been fined and sentenced to short periods of imprisonment, mainly for offences involving assault.  On 20 June this year he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre for a possession of dangerous drugs case.  He is currently in the addiction centre receiving treatment.

8.  His mitigation shows that although he was born in Thailand, he came to Hong Kong in 1997.  He has mainly worked in Hong Kong as a restaurant worker.  For the last seven to eight years he has been a chef in a Thai restaurant.  He has a daughter aged 12.

9.  As far as the offence is concerned, he says he was in the building looking for a friend, and it was an opportunistic offence, as the wooden door and the gate were unlocked.

10.  As far as the level of sentencing is concerned, for a domestic premises burglary, for a first offence, the starting point for imprisonment where there are no particular aggravating or mitigating factors would be one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  Although the defendant has a criminal record dating from the year 2005, this would appear to be the first time at this stage that he has been charged with and convicted of burglary, although he does seem to be, on his antecedent statement, subject to investigation in relation to another burglary, but that would not be a relevant factor for sentencing.

11.  As far as this burglary is concerned, it was committed in the early afternoon in a domestic premises where people were present, and of course the defendant was located whilst committing the burglary, and a fracas ensued in which people were hurt.  That is a factor that contains some aggravation.

12.  As far as mitigating factors are concerned, no items were in fact lost in the burglary, and the defendant has shown remorse by pleading guilty.

13.  In respect of this offence, I shall take a starting point at 39 months’ imprisonment to reflect the aggravating factor, and reduce that to 26 months’ imprisonment, having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty.

14.  So the sentence will be one of 26 months’ imprisonment.