HKSAR v. CHAN KAM WING

 DCCC1434/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1434 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted of two offences of burglary on his own plea of guilty.

2.  The burglaries occurred in April and May 2009.  The two burglaries occurred at domestic premises in Tuen Mun.

3.  The first burglary involved a burglary of domestic premises where a grand total value of $157,750 was stolen in terms of jewellery and such like.  The main door of the domestic premises being prized open. 

4.  The second burglary, a total value of cash of $2,000 was stolen along with a passport and a bag.  The door to the premises had been prized open by you somehow with a rattan stick. 

5.  Samples of the defendant’s DNA and fingerprints were lifted from the two locations. 

6.  In September 2009 whilst in custody the defendant admitted having committed the two burglaries.  The stolen property had been disposed of and could not be recovered.  The defendant had committed the burglaries alone. 

7.  The defendant has a large number of previous convictions, a total of 19 previous appearances in court which involve 51 convictions of which 30 are for burglary.  Most recently in September of last year 2009, the defendant was sentenced to 2½ years in this court for two burglaries. 

8.  The defendant is 49 years old.  He is a drug addict.  He is divorced.  He has been detained since 13 July 2009.  The defendant appeared in this court in the District Court in September 2009 when he was sentenced for 2½ years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is currently serving that sentence.

9.  In that case the defendant was convicted of two burglaries.  They occurred in April and May of that year 2009 and were in Tuen Mun.  They were committed at the same time and on about the same place as the burglaries I am now dealing with.  So I am faced with a position where all four burglaries in the defendant’s present and last appearance in court relate to burglaries committed in April and May of 2009 in the Tuen Mun area.  They are part of a series of offences related in time and place.

10.  The defence argues that I should regard all four burglaries together and adopt an approach that would determine an overall totality for the defendant’s criminality in April and May of 2009, that I would pass a sentence which would be in line with a sentence that would have been passed if all four burglaries had been sentenced together in September of 2009.  Clearly, that must be the correct approach for me to adopt in relation to sentencing the defendant on this occasion.

11.  Now, I approach the case in this way.  On each burglary, I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, so he is entitled to one-third discount on each burglary.  So on Charges 1 and 2, I will impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment on each charge. 

12.  I will order that of those sentences that 3 months of the second conviction runs consecutively to the first, giving an overall total of -- and the balance concurrently, giving an overall sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment in respect of these two offences. 

13.  Now, as far as the existing sentence that the defendant is serving, I will order that this sentence runs 15 months consecutively to his existing sentence and the 12 months concurrently to his existing sentence.  So the effect of the present conviction will be to increase his existing sentence by 15 months’ imprisonment.