HKSAR v. CHOW KWOK KEUNG

DCCC 72/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 72 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Burglary, contrary to s.11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Particulars of the charge are that the defendant on 30^th November 2013 having entered the storeroom at 3^rd floor, Cheong Fu Court, Wealthy Garden, Tsuen Wan as a trespasser stole 2 handbags, 1 bank passbook, one bottle of pills, one coin bag, one pair of glasses, one key holder with 6 keys, $20 cash and some documents.

Summary of facts

2.  PW1 and PW2 were cleaning workers working at Wealthy Garden. On 30^th November, they stored their handbags in a storeroom situated next to the lift lobby of the 3^rd floor podium and went to work. The storeroom was not locked during their work hours.

3.  They finished work and returned to find their handbags missing at around 3:10pm. They did not report the matter to the Police as there was nothing valuable inside the bags.

4.  At around 1pm the following day, PW1 together with PW3, another colleague, were working at Wealthy Garden again and was taking a lift to the ground floor and they ran into the defendant. PW3 pointed out to PW1 that the defendant was the person whom she had seen wandering in the lift lobby the day the handbags were stolen. PW1 therefore confronted the defendant about her handbag and the defendant admitted that he had taken it.

5.  PW4, a Police officer, who happened to be patrolling the area saw the confrontation and intervened. Under caution, the defendant admitted to taking the 2 handbags from the storeroom. He said he had thrown them into a rubbish bin somewhere after finding that there was nothing valuable inside. The defendant further admitted that he entered the podium no the 3^rd floor to see if there was anything valuable. The defendant was then arrested.

6.  The two handbags contained the property as particularized.

Previous convictions

7.  The defendant has 77 previous convictions, 6 of them were for burglary, 33 were for theft or theft related offences. His latest conviction was in June 2013 for theft when he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. He was released in October the same year.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant is 52, educated up to primary 6 level in Hong Kong. After quitting school, he worked as a construction worker, garment worker and restaurant worker. His father passed away 2 years ago, and his mother lives with his younger sister. They have lost contact with each other for a long time.

9.  About 7 years ago, the defendant was diagnosed as having some bone disease and has difficulty walking.

10.  Since 1978 the defendant had been in prison every year. He was last released in October 2013 when he committed the present offence. Although the defendant  was receiving about $4,000 per month CSSA, he had a rental payment of $4,500, and so was living with insufficient means, which was why he committed the present offence. Lastly, Mr. Yuen pointed out that the strongest mitigating factors are that the defendant pleaded guilty and cooperated with the Police.

Sentence

11.  The maximum sentence for burglary is that of 14 years’ imprisonment.

12.  The prosecution agreed that this case is burglary of a non-domestic premises. The tariff sentence for burglary of a non-domestic premises is that of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment, subject to any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

13.  There is one aggravating factor in this case and that is the defendant’s previous convictions. This is his 78th conviction and 7^th burglary conviction. He committed the present offence shortly after his last release from prison.

14.  Although there is some sympathy with the defendant’s plight of having to pay more rent than he was receiving in social welfare assistance, it cannot be an excuse for his crime and he has to suffer the full consequences of his action.

15.  Taking into consideration the aggravating factor, but bearing in mind that the property being stolen was not of high value and that the burglary did not involve any forceful breaking in of the premises, I will adopt the starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is given the full one third discount for his guilty plea and is sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.