HKSAR v. LEUNG PUI

DCCC 892/2024

[2025] HKDC 874

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 892 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He and an unknown person burgled a Chinese restaurant situated at Shop No.LG101, Lower Ground Floor, Pak Tin Commercial Centre, Pak Tin Estate, Sham Shui Po ("the Restaurant").

Summary of Facts

2.  Madam Wai (PW1)  was the manager of the Restaurant.  Upon arriving at work in the morning on 26 February 2024, she found the manager's office having been ransacked; and the safe having been moved and prized open.  Cash in the sum of $100,000 contained in the safe was missing.  PW1 also found 11 bottles of Moutai (Chinese liquor)  and 7 bottles of Cognac (valued at $20,200 in total)  missing from the display rack.  The Police was alerted.

3.  CCTV footage of the Restaurant captured 2 masked males wearing gloves and caps, carrying a violin case and towing a suitcase with wheels, walking in from the back door around 11:00 p.m. on 25 February 2024.  They remained in the Restaurant for about 30 minutes and left.

4.  CCTV footage of nearby locations captured the leaving route of one of the burglars. The culprit was traced all the way to Tung Wong House, Tai Hang Tung Estate. CCTV footage of the lifts of Tung Wong House showed the culprit (later confirmed to be the defendant)  having removed his mask and cap.  He stepped out of the lift on the 7^th Floor.  Investigation revealed the culprit's identity and residence.

5.  On 27 February 2024, police officers laid ambush outside the defendant's residence ("the Flat").  About midnight on 28 February 2024, they intercepted the defendant upon his return and gained entry into the Flat.  The defendant's niece and younger brother were inside.  Upon a house search, cash in the sums of $36,690 and $8,000 were found respectively in the drawer of the defendant's bed and the drawer of the TV cabinet.  In the top storage space of the TV cabinet, 8 bottles of Moutai and 4 bottles of Cognac were found.  A violin case containing tools (1 hacksaw, 2 crowbars and 2 screwdrivers)  and a suitcase with wheels were also found in the Flat.

6.  Upon arrest and under caution, the defendant said "It was me who burgled Yat Tsui Hin a few days ago.  It was none of their business with my family members."

7.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that he had asked his friend "Ah Kwok" to commit the burglary with him together. They went into the Restaurant from its back door.  They prized open the safe in the office and stole all the money.  They also stole the Chinese liquor and Cognac from the display rack.  The defendant took all the Chinese liquor and Cognac; and Ah Kwok, the cash.  The defendant claimed that he bought the burglary tools at Apliu Street and put them in the violin case.  He also identified himself in the cap screen photos of the CCTV footage of the Restaurant and Tung Wong House. 

Mitigation & Sentence

8. The defendant is 65 and has 13 conviction records, which included 5 "Burglary" offences and 3 "Robbery" offences. Defence solicitor Ms. Lee informed me that the defendant is divorced with no children. At the time of the present offence, he was unemployed, relying on $4,500 CSSA each month. He resided at the Flat with his younger brother and niece. In mitigation, Ms. Lee submitted that the defendant has fully cooperated with the Police. He admitted his leadership role even though the other culprit is still at large.

9. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. The defendant and another culprit acted in concert, bringing with them tools contained in a violin case. Plainly, some degree of advance planning was required. Also, the total value of all stolen properties (cash and top-shelf liquor)  was about $120,000. All of the above are aggravating factors. Hence, I would increase the starting point to 39 months[1]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 26 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 26 months' imprisonment.

10. The defendant first transgressed the law in 1976 at the age of 16. He then managed to stay trouble-free until he was 30. From 1989 to 2023, he has accrued 12 conviction records (involving a total of 13 offences). By strict arithmetical calculations based on his criminal records, the defendant has spent most of the past 3 decades serving time in prison, sentence after sentence. It is indeed a sad truth. The court can only do so much in deterring a repeated offender by way of a heavy penalty. Whilst the sentence must carry a deterrent effect, it cannot go out of proportion. The defendant is already 65. To live a law-abiding life with dignity or to continue being a criminal is a matter entirely for him.