HKSAR v. CHAN CHEONG WING

DCCC1274/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1274 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary, contrary to section ll(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  You have admitted that on an unknown date between 1 December 2008 and 13 May 2009 in Hong Kong you entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Room 2912, Tsui Lok House, Tsui Ping Estate, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, and stole two bracelets, one necklace, one pendant, four wrist chains and one ring. In summary, you burgled your sister’s home and stole these properties from her.

3.  Your sister had left a set of keys to her home with your father some 3 years prior to December 2008. This was to facilitate your father’s entering the premises to take care of the grandchildren. Your father left the keys at his home to which he shared with yourself and your mother. On a day in May 2009 your parents went to mainland China and left your sister’s house keys unattended in his unlocked bedroom.

4.  On 15 May 2009 your father found a pawn shop receipt dated 13 May 2009 in your bedroom. The pawn shop receipt bore your Hong Kong ID card number and your address and showed that you had pawned 7 pieces of jewellery at the total amount of $18,000. Feeling suspicious your father told your sister about the pawn shop receipt found in your room. Your sister then discovered that a number of her jewellery were missing from a locked drawer inside her wardrobe. She had last seen the jewellery placed in the locked drawer in December 2008. She made a report to the police.

5.  No prized mark was found on the door of the premises or on the locked drawer inside the wardrobe of your sister’s room. The jewellery pawned to the pawn shop was recovered by the police and your sister confirmed that they were all her property.

6.  Your counsel, Mr Cheng, has made full mitigation on your behalf. You are aged 33, single, born in Hong Kong and have two previous convictions in 2006 of procuring the making of an entry in certain records of a bank by deception to which you were fined $2,000 and $4,000 respectively. They were offences of dishonesty.

7.  You had worked in a bank for 3 years, done clerical work in a factory and just before your arrest for this offence was a computer technician. I am informed by Mr Cheng that the reason for your committing this offence is because you owed money on your credit card and sought to repay these loans by committing this offence.

8.  Mr Cheng accepts that this is a serious offence and there are guidelines for this offence, for domestic burglary, however he asks me to distinguish this case from the usual burglary case. He says the guidelines are there of 3 years’ imprisonment after trial because of the possibility of confrontation and the invasion of privacy in one’s own home. He says the special circumstance in this case is that you are not a total stranger because the victim is your sister and there is no risk of confrontation. Further it is not a true invasion of privacy as you are her brother. Mr Cheng submits that in those circumstances the court does not have to follow strictly the guideline laid down for burglary of domestic premises.

9.  This was an invasion of privacy. You burgled your own sister’s house and she did not know that it was you. Although you are not a total stranger, had she had a confrontation with you, I am sure that she would have been shocked, disappointed and surprised that her own brother could and burgled her house and stolen from her.

10.  One would have to assume that the greatest trust you can put in people are the people who are close to you. Those are your family members, assuming they would never do anything dishonest to you. To steal from one’s own family could be, although I am not taking it as such, may we be considered to be a aggravating factor.

11.  I have received three letters of mitigation. One -- each from your mother and father asking me to give you a chance and that you are sorry for what has happened, and they forgive you and they want you to rebuild your life. The other is from the victim, your sister. She has informed me that she is very sad and sorry about what you have done, but for the protection of her own interest and to mitigate her loss she had no choice but to report the matter, but she does not want you to shoulder criminal responsibility or face a custodial sentence.

12.  She has said that you are the beloved son of your parents. As a result of what has happened, they cannot sleep, they do not eat well. Since the detention of yourself in custody, your parents have become slim and she therefore urges me to impose a lenient sentence so that the family can become reunited as soon as possible. She expressly states that she forgives you for what you have done.

13.  Your sister appears to be saying that as a result of your committing this offence, this has had a great effect on your parents. She obviously feels guilty in reporting you to the police and for you having to serve your sentence. I am sure that it is not easy for any family member to report another family member for such a serious offence. As explained in her letter she has done this for the protection of her own interest and to mitigate her losses.

14.  Mr Cheng has urged me to give you a discount, particularly as your sister has forgiven you, and if the sentence is reduced slightly, this will certainly help to rebuild your relationship in the future with her and the rest of the family.

15.  I have given much thought and consideration to this matter. I do concede to Mr Cheng’s mitigation. I must recognize that it is very difficult for a family member to report another family member, that in itself is one matter. Your sister did that knowing that this is a serious offence. I have heard of no animosity between yourself and your sister either before this offence or after. I have heard that your relationship was normal, you were not particularly close, you were not living together but it was normal sibling relationship.

16.  I accept that given the fact that a report was made, it may make matters between yourselves more difficult in the future. Given these circumstances I am prepared to give you a further discount of 3 months’ imprisonment.

17.  In the circumstances for an offence of domestic burglary, the usual sentence after trial is 3 years’ imprisonment. I give you full credit for your plea of guilty, therefore, your sentence will be reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Giving you the further discount of 3 months, that makes your term of imprisonment one of 21 months’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced.