HKSAR v. LUI BING CHING

DCCC 538 & 698/2018 (Consolidated)

[2019] HKDC 193

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 538 and 698 OF 2018 (Consolidated)

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  This is a case of burglary of business premises.

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty before me to 3 counts of burglary, which were committed within a period of six weeks. His fourth count of burglary (charge one) is left on court’s files.

3.  The premises in question were either shops or restaurants and they were broken into after closing time.

4.  The first incident took place in the morning of 12^th February 2018 at the restaurant called “Don Don Tei” in Paterson Street, Causeway Bay. The defendant entered the restaurant and took three mobile phones from inside. The entrance to the restaurant was not secure with locked doors but relied on the plastic roller shutter of the Plaza where it is situated for security purposes.

5.  Three days later on 15^th February, the second incident took place at the salvation army family store in Wing Hing Street, North Point. The defendant forced entry by breaking the ventilator. This time cash of $14,500, a shirt and a pair of shoes were stolen.

6.  Some weeks later on 24^th March, the third incident took place at another restaurant in Java Road, North Point. The defendant forced entry via the ventilator and stole cash of $40,000, which comprises mainly $20 notes, by prising open wardrobes with a crowbar.

7.  About a week later, a shopkeeper of a shop in a plaza in Causeway Bay found the defendant to be suspicious and called the police. He was arrested by responding officers who found a pile of $20 notes amounting to $8,560 on him.  

8.  The defendant, aged 50, single, is obviously a recidivist by looking at his criminal records – he has amassed 29 prior convictions over the past 24 years, the majority of which are burglary, 27 burglaries in total, the remaining two are also something having to do with burglary – going equipped for stealing.  His last convictions are a number of burglaries with a count of going equipped back in 2014 for which he was sentenced to an overall term of 22 months’ imprisonment.

9.  Counsel for the defendant did not have much to put forward by way of mitigation, after stating briefly the defendant’s background- he lives alone in a sub-divided room not having much contacts with his family members, then said that the defendant used to have a part-time job as a delivery worker, but as he was out of work for 2 months at the time of the offences, he therefore committed the crimes as he needed money to live on.

10.  Counsel said the defendant has now become a Christian and been going to the church regularly for six months, he promised that he would not commit any more crimes in the future, especially burglary. 

11.  As these are non-dwelling burglaries, I take 30 months as starting point for each of the charges, and I add 3 months on top for his being a repeat offender, and then deduct it by 1/3 for his timely plea. The term for each charge is therefore 22 months.

12.  Insofar as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty pleas, there isn’t anything of substance.

13.  Taking into account the totality principle, I order that the term of charge 2 be run consecutively to 3 months of each subsequent charge, the total term is one of 28 months imprisonment.