HKSAR v. LEUNG CHU LEUNG

DCCC 517/2020

[2020] HKDC 1237

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 517 OF 2020

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 1st and 2nd defendant in this case both faced and pleaded to three charges of burglary.  All three burglaries took place on the same day, 5 March 2020, in three separate shop locations, that is, non-domestic premises.  The 1st defendant pleaded on an earlier date before a different judge on 17  September 2020.  Today, the 2nd defendant has also pleaded guilty to all three charges. 

Facts of the case

2.  The three burglaries took place on 5 March 2020 between 3.30 and 4.20 am in three different claw machine game arcades in Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po.  These arcades are open 24 hours a day with no staff on duty at the material times.  On CCTV, the two defendants and two unknown persons are captured entering the three locations, the machines are opened and toys are taken away.  It is agreed that the three arcades suffered losses of $9,000, $14,000 and $6,080 respectively.  The two defendants were caught red-handed in the third and last arcade by those in charge who came after spotting them on CCTV cameras.  The toys stolen from this last arcade were recovered at the scene.

3.  The two defendants were arrested when police officers happened to patrol nearby at around 4.29 am and heard commotion coming from inside the third arcade.  They entered and saw a group of men struggling with each other.  They intervened and investigated the incident with the two defendants subsequently being arrested. 

4.  Under caution, the 2nd defendant admitted he was stealing toys from the arcades with others with an intention to resell them.  He identified himself in the CCTV footage captured from cameras in all three locations.  He told the police there were other men involved but they escaped from the third arcade.

Mitigation

5.  The 2nd defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has previous convictions for drug-related and triad offences.  Mr Leung for the defendant has said all he can say on his behalf. The 2nd defendant is now 23 years old, single, was working as a construction site worker at the time of his arrest and does have a drug habit. The 2nd defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  He has a three-year-old daughter with an ex-girlfriend who remains in the care of her mother.  He wanted to earn some money to help pay for her tuition in a privately-run kindergarten.  A friend suggested committing these burglaries to make some quick and fast money.  His friend escaped during the course of the third burglary, whilst he was caught red-handed with the 1st defendant. 

Reasons for sentence

6.  It is the norm to consider a starting point of 2 years and 6 months for a non-domestic burglary where there is no aggravating or mitigating factors to consider.  In this case, all three premises were non-domestic premises and all three premises were burgled on the same night.  However, they were committed by more than two people.  This is a factor I find relevant, that is, the offences were committed by two or more people committing multiple offences.  That is an aggravating factor that will attract a slightly higher starting point.  I therefore increase the normal starting point of 2 years and 6 months by 3 months.  Therefore, the starting point for each charge is 2 years and 9 months. 

7.   The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full discount.  After that discount is applied, the sentence for each charge is 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment.

8.   I will take the totality principle into account and order that 3 months of Charge 2 and 3 months of Charge 3 be served consecutively to the 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment of Charge 1. Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.