HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING KIN

DCCC 982/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 982 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of domestic burglary （the 1st charge）, and another charge of theft （the 3rd charge）.

The 1st charge

2.  The burglary took place in a unit of a public housing estate building (“the flat”) on 20 August 2013.  On that day at around 7.30 pm Mr Wong Kam-tung left the flat, the wooden door was left open, but he was not certain if the iron gate was locked.  When he returned at around 11.30 pm of the same day, he found that a drawer of a cabinet inside his bedroom was prized open.  Nothing was however stolen. 

3.  CCTV footages showed that the defendant entered the building at about 8 pm and took a lift to the 25th Floor.  Shortly afterwards, he took a lift from the 24th Floor to the lobby and left the building immediately. 

The 3rd charge

4.  On 28 August 2013 the defendant was arrested. Under caution he admitted having entered the flat intending to steal but he did not take away anything at the end.

5.  Upon a body search on the defendant, an Octopus card in the name of Tse Hok-him and a mobile phone were found on the defendant.  He admitted he picked up the phone and the Octopus card for his own use outside Lam Tin MTR station on 23 August 2013. 

6.  In a video-recorded interview the defendant further admitted that he saw that the wooden door of the flat was not closed. He squatted and stretched his right hand to open the lock of the iron gate.  He prized open a cabinet which only contained documents and he therefore left without stealing anything.

Personal background and mitigation

7.  The defendant is aged 24.  He has two previous convictions, one of which was theft in 2008 when he was fined $1,000. 

8.  In mitigation, Mr Lo, counsel for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant was previously a cook earning around $13,000 a month.  He was living with his parents and younger sister before he was arrested.  Mr Lo asks the court to take into account the fact that there was no damage or loss caused to the victim.

Consideration of sentence

9.  The usual starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years’ imprisonment.  In this case I take into account that the offence of burglary took place at around 8 pm of the evening when the flat was not occupied. No one was put in fear.  There was no breaking in of the door.   No financial loss or substantial property damage was caused to the victim.  I therefore adopt a lower starting point, namely 2½ years’ imprisonment. 

10.  For the 3rd charge, I adopt 1½ months’ imprisonment as the starting point. 

11.  The defendant will have one-third reduction for his plea of guilty.  I cannot find any other mitigating factors apart from his plea of guilty. 

12.  The two offences are separate and distinct.  I have considered the principle of totality but I find that the sentences for the two offences should run consecutively.   The defendant is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment on the 1st charge, and 1 month’s imprisonment on the 3rd charge.  Both sentences are ordered to run consecutively.  The total term of imprisonment is therefore 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

(C.P. Pang) District Judge