HKSAR v. LAU KA CHUN

DCCC 793/2020

[2021] HKDC 276

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 793 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to eight charges of burglary of non-domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance (charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 & 12)[1].

2.  Full particulars of the offences are set out in the amended summary of facts admitted by the defendant today.  In summary the defendant was arrested on 5 April 2020 for the eight burglaries committed in November 2019 and April 2020.  Under caution the defendant admitted all the burglaries. 

3.  The burglaries included schools; a church, an education centre, a beauty salon and a bookshop.  Various property was stolen including cash, cameras, iPads and computers.  The total value of the stolen property in all eight burglaries was $224,531.  One iPad was recovered. 

4.  Photographs of seven of the premises burgled have been submitted to court[2].

Charge 1

5.  At about 4:40 a.m. on 11 November 2019 the defendant burgled a language school situated on the 4th floor of President Commercial Centre, Nos. 602-608 Nathan Road in Mong Kok. 

6.  The defendant prized open the glass door and metal gate to the language school, ransacked the school and stole nine iPads valued at $36,000.  The repair cost of the damage to the school was $12,000.

7.  CCTV captured the defendant committing the burglary.

Charge 2

8.  At about 9:11 p.m. on 12 November 2019 the defendant burgled VNSAA St Hilary’s School in Mong Kok.  The padlock of the wooden door to the school was prized open, the security alarm damaged and a classroom ransacked.  $18,000 cash; seventeen iPads valued at $70,000; one cheque book and a school stamp were stolen.   

9.  CCTV captured the defendant committing the burglary.

10.  On 9 December 2019 one iPad was recovered when Mr Lo purchased the iPad from a shop in Mong Kok and discovered that the iPad was locked by the school. 

Charge 5

11.  In the early hours of 2 April 2020 the defendant burgled the Yuen Long Church on Ping Shun Street.  Doors, drawers, donation boxes and a window frame showed signs of prizing.  The church was ransacked and HK$5,949, US$85, seven cheques, one digital camera, two notebook computers and one webcam were stolen.  The total value of the stolen goods was $18,912.  The cost of repair was about $3,000.

Charge 6

12.  In the early hours of 2 April 2020 the defendant burgled the Yuen Long Church (CCC) Chan Kwong No. 2 Kindergarten which was next to the Yuen Long Church on Ping Shun Street.  Doors of two classrooms, six drawers and two windows showed signs of prizing.  Three tablet computers and one digital camera, with a total value of $8,997, were stolen.  The cost of repair was about $10,000.

13.  CCTV captured the defendant appearing in the corridor on the first floor of the kindergarten at 3:59 a.m. on 2 April 2020 and wandering between the kindergarten and the church until he left at 6:23 a.m.

Charge 9[3]

14.  In the early hours of 3 April 2020 the defendant burgled “A Salon” situated at Flat B on the 1st Floor of Siu Ming Building in Yuen Long.  The lock of the backdoor of the balcony was damaged and the salon ransacked.  $1,000 cash, one television valued at $2,000, one notebook computer valued at $2,000, a company stamp, one cheque book and a bank passbook were stolen.  The cost of repair was about $500.

15.  CCTV captured the defendant entering the salon between 03:24 and 03:45 on 3 April 2020.  When the defendant was arrested he was found in possession of the bank passbook.

16.  The defendant’s fingerprint was also found on the metal door of the salon. 

Charge 8

17.  On the night of 3 April/morning of 4 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Superior Education Centre Limited” situated at Flat B on the 1st Floor of No. 140 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long.  The centre was ransacked.  Two computers, two memory sticks, one smartphone, two speakers; four boxes of masks, $400 cash, one waist bag, one trolley, one wallet, one router, one fish tank, one tool bag and four bags were stolen.   The total value of the stolen property was $26,600.

18.  CCTV captured the defendant entering a classroom at 11:58 p.m. on 3 April and leaving at 3:37 a.m. on 4 April 2020.

Charge 11

19.  In the early hours of 5 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Kiu Hong Moxibustion Center” situated on the 2nd Floor of No. 126 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long.  Scaffolding was erected outside the building which the defendant climbed and entered the center.  The center was ransacked and $4,500 cash, four packets of soup mix valued at $272, twenty bottles of supplement valued at $7,000, fifteen packets of dried orange peel valued at $11,250, one lighter valued at $3,000, two bank passbooks, one bank card and one membership card were stolen. 

20.  When the defendant was arrested he was found in possession of the two bank passbooks, the bank card and the membership card.

21.  The defendant’s fingerprint was also found on the hard disk drive placed on a chair in the center.    

Charge 12

22.  In the early hours of 5 April 2020 the defendant burgled “Comic Village” bookshop situated on the 1st Floor of No. 126 Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long. 

23.  The defendant admitted committing the burglary after burgling the Kiu Hong Moxibustion Center on the 2nd floor. The defendant opened the locked cashier and stole $11,000 cash.  Forty Blu-ray discs valued at $4,000 were also stolen.

24.  The defendant’s fingerprints were lifted from the window near the main door and on the window of the storeroom. 

Mitigation

25.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Sio, including that the defendant, who is 31, single and a scaffolding worker by trade, lives with his mother who he takes care of[4].

26.  Mr Sio says that the defendant wanting to make quick money because all his savings had been used up committed the burglaries.  Mr Sio explains that after the defendant’s business closed down in 2018 the defendant continued working as a scaffolding worker.  However due to the social unrest of 2019 he became unemployed.  The defendant’s arm was also fractured when he was assaulted trying to stop Sai Yeung Choi Street from being blocked.  The defendant was hospitalized for one week and has been unable to work as a scaffolding worker anymore[5]. 

27.  Mr Sio submits today a mitigation letter written by the defendant in which the defendant details his working history; how he was assaulted; the need to take care of his mother; that he acted out of greed and asks for a lenient sentence. 

28.  I take into account the defendant has no previous convictions for burglary and that his last conviction for an offence of dishonesty was in 2005 when he was placed on probation.

Starting point

29.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.    

30.  I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial on each charge is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

Totality

31.  Mr Sio accepts that where offences are committed in different premises against different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should be imposed, subject to the totality principle[6]. Mr Sio submits that largely concurrent sentences are appropriate and suggests a total sentence of 35 months imprisonment is appropriate[7].   In court Mr Sio revises his suggestion to 32 months’ imprisonment by making the sentences on charges 5 and 6 concurrent.

32.  In my view, a total sentence of 32 or 35 months’ imprisonment does not reflect the seriousness of the charges.  Sentence must reflect that the defendant committed eight burglaries, two in November 2019 and six in April 2020 and that the total value of the stolen property was $224,531.  Apart from the bank passbooks, the bank card and the membership card (charges 9 & 11) only one iPad has been recovered (charge 2). 

33.  Sentence should also reflect that the burglaries subject of charges 5 and 6 were of adjoining premises and that the burglaries subject of charges 11 and 12 were committed in the same building one after the other.

34.  Taking into account all the circumstances of the eight burglaries, I am satisfied a total sentence of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment properly reflects the defendant’s criminality on the eight charges and takes into account the defendant’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences[8].  

Sentence

35.  The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charge 1;

Charges 5 & 6 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charges 1 & 2;

Charge 8 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charges 1, 2, 5 & 6;

Charge 9 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charges 1, 2, 5, 6 & 8; and

Charges 11 & 12 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each charge with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

The total sentence to be served by the defendant on the eight charges is 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.