HKSAR v. WEI JIAJIANG

DCCC845/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 845 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you face two charges this morning: the 1st charge being burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 and the 2nd charge being ‘Resisting police officers in the execution of their duties’, contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232.

2.  According to the Summary of Facts which you have admitted, on 10 June this year, which is one day after you have entered Hong Kong from the mainland, you entered the victim’s home, which is situated at Flat 1A, 1st Floor, Kwun Fung Mansion, No. 51 Tai Hong Street, Sai Wan Ho, and stole therein one iPhone 4, two necklaces with pendants, one ring and cash of HK$1,500.  The total value of these stolen properties amounts to a total of $121,500. All these stolen properties were placed on the table of the victim’s bedroom. 

3.  In fact shortly before you were arrested by police in the flat you were seen by a neighbour of the victim of the same building that you were half-squatting at the flowerbed of the 1st floor podium and was kept looking upward.  The police was alerted as a result.     

4.  When you were found inside the flat, you were first hiding in the wardrobe of the study room inside the flat.  You then jumped out of the wardrobe and, in so doing, dropping a pair of white gloves onto the floor.  You attempted to flee after one of the police officers declared arrest on you, and you had put up a struggle violently.  That was the basis of the Charge 2.  You were later subsequently subdued and arrested by the police.

5.  In light of your plea of the 1st charge, the prosecution now contends that Charge 2 can be left in the court’s file and not to be proceeded without the leave of the court.

6.  Under caution at the scene, you first said nothing, but in a subsequent video record of interview, you admitted the offence.  In particular, you said you took a screwdriver next to the flowerpot to prise open the window and climb inside the flat to commit the crime. 

7.  You are a two-way permit holder entering Hong Kong from Shenzhen, according to your lawyer.  You are now aged 25 and you have a clear record in Hong Kong.  You are still single and both of your parents, now in their 50s, are residing in Shenzhen.

8.  Your lawyer has submitted to me a letter which is written by yourself.  In it you told me that the reason why you committed the present offence is because you have lost money in gambling table by playing mah-jong.  You felt very remorseful for what you have done.  You asked for a chance and hoped the court can exercise mercy and be lenient to you. 

9.  Upon clarification, I was told that the reason why you visited Hong Kong is to see the place.  You have with you some $8,000. I further ask how much money you have lost through gambling and the answer was $2,000-odd.  It causes me to doubt the real reason why you have to commit a crime like this, because you have still sufficient means to carry on with your visit in Hong Kong or even to go back to the mainland without any financial difficulty.  I therefore do not accept what you have said as the real reason why you have committed this offence. 

10.  You are the mainlander who visited Hong Kong and you committed this offence the very next day you were here.  I judge that you came to Hong Kong all the way for the purpose of committing crimes in Hong Kong to earn quick money. 

11.  You also told me through the letter that during the incarceration, you learned that your mother had a heart attack and was admitted to the hospital and also your father was suffering from all sorts of different illness and that they were not working and therefore you have financial burdens.  I can only say that the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong had said so many times before that family circumstances virtually play no part in serious crimes such as the present.

12.  The proper starting point for burglary of domestic premises was established as one of 3 year’s imprisonment after trial. In this case I do not accept what you told the police that you just picked up the screwdriver in a flowerbed.  Clearly you have equipped yourself with a pair of white gloves, which is obviously to avoid leaving any fingerprints behind at the crime scene, and in so doing you must have bought with you the tools for breaking into the premises including the screwdriver.

13.  In sentencing, I took into account the degree of the planning involved, the equipment used, the damage caused to gain entry and the value of the property stolen which is over a $100,000.  Taking all these factors together put the present case into a higher category described as “cases of professional criminals who plan their burglaries with meticulous care and steal goods and cash of considerable value”.

14.  As a result, I decided to increase the starting point by 9 months from 3 years to 45 months.  You pleaded guilty, which is the only effective mitigation in this case.  Therefore I reduce the sentence by one-third.  In the end you will be sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, which is 2½ years.