HKSAR v.HUI SAI ON

DCCC1291/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1291 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary. The burgled premises were a shop situated on the 1st Floor of Wonder Building in Fuk Wa Street, Shamshuipo, Kowloon.

2.  At around 2000 hours on 29 September 2009, the owner of the shop closed his shop for business.  At about 2200 hours on the same day, a security guard working at Wonder Building found that the glass door of the shop had been smashed.  He immediately reported the incident to his senior management.

3.  Upon being informed of the incident, the owner of the shop returned to his shop and found that 5 laptop computers had gone missing.

4.  Acting upon intelligence, at about 1055 hours on the following day, police officers attended the residence of the Defendant, namely a unit in Yat Tung Estate, Lantau.  The officers saw the Defendant coming out of his residence.  The Defendant was intercepted and was brought back to his residence.  With the Defendant’s consent, his home residence was searched.  Inside the Defendant’s bedroom, 3 laptop computers were found.  A white T-shirt and a black and orange coloured shoulder bag were also seized from the residence, and the Defendant was then arrested.

5.  The owner of the shop, based on various distinguishing features, positively identified the 3 laptop computers seized from the Defendant’s residence were the laptop computers which had gone missing from his shop.  One of the owners of the computers who earlier left the computer at the shop for repair also confirmed that one of the computers seized from the Defendant’s residence was his property.

6.  CCTV footage was seized and reviewed by the police.  It showed that between 2153 hours and 2202 hours on 29 September 2010, a man matching the appearance of the Defendant, together with another man, were inside the shopping arcade where the burgled shop was situated at. The former man was seen wearing a white T-shirt and a black and orange coloured shoulder bag, items of which were similar to those found inside the Defendant’s residence when he was arrested.

7.  The Defendant’s fingerprints were found on 2 of the computers found in the Defendant’s residence.  The total value of the 5 stolen laptop computers was HK$29,500.

8.  The Defendant is aged 36.  He has 13 previous convictions with 5 related to theft offences and one related to a robbery offence.  He completed Form 2 education in Hong Kong.  He co-habited with a girlfriend and they have 2 children, aged 13 and 10 respectively.  I am given to understand that the Defendant does have two old-age parents and the mother of the Defendant is now suffering from breast cancer.

9.  According to Miss Lee, solicitor for the Defendant, the Defendant was a casual plumber, earning $600 a day prior to his arrest.  He did not have a lot of work and so he committed the present offence because of economic pressure.  At the time of the offence, the building in which the shop was situated was under renovation.  According to the Defendant, he saw that the glass of the shop was smashed, and seizing the opportunity, he committed the present offence.  According to Miss Lee, the Defendant was remorseful and he did not carry any weapon in the commission of the offence.

10.  Despite that, burglary is a serious offence. The present offence involved a non-domestic premises, and according to established sentencing guidelines, the proper starting point for the sentence is 2½ years’ imprisonment.

11.  I have some reservation with the Defendant’s allegation that the glass of the shop was already smashed before he committed the offence, but I do not think that this would matter in terms of the sentence, and I do not find that any of the mitigating factors advanced by Miss Lee would justify a further reduction in the sentence.

12.  However, the Defendant pleads guilty to the offence.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment, and this is the sentence I impose in the present case.