HKSAR v. LUO ZHI

DCCC 515/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 515 OF 2015

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

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

---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary. The offence occurred at the home of the two victims, the first and second prosecution witnesses, on 16 May 2015, and they are residents of a premises in Yau Ma Tei.

2.  At around 4 o’clock in the morning of 16 May this year, the defendant entered their premises.  The entry was through a window that he had shaken open, and he climbed up, using a water pipe.  When inside the premises, he stole from there a mobile phone and a watch, and this was from a room where one of the victims was sleeping.

3.  The defendant was stopped at about 5.45 that morning by police.  A search revealed the stolen property.  There was a torch, some gloves and screwdriver.  And by using the phone, the police were able to locate one of the victims.

4.  The defendant admitted that he committed the burglary and said he had done it alone. 

5.  The phone is valued at $1,900, the watch at $5,000 and the cost of repairing the window at $1,000.

6.  The defendant is a 37-year-old man with a clear record.  He comes from Hunan in China.  He has a 10-year-old daughter, lives with his mother and father who are aged 73 and 63 respectively.  The defendant had been employed at Foxconn but had been made unemployed.  In mitigation, he said he was short of money at the time.  He is remorseful, had confessed at the first opportunity.  All the stolen property had been recovered, and he had made detailed admissions in his video-recorded interview.

7.  There were no obvious aggravating factors such as the use of equipment, heavy equipment or committing the burglary along with others.

8.  As far as the sentence is concerned, this is a case of a burglary of a residential premises, and even a person of clear record can expect a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment would be adopted for such a burglary.  There are no obvious aggravating factors in this burglary nor any mitigating factors that would require the court to depart from the normal guideline sentence.  I will adopt therefore a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 years’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The sentence will be one of 2 years’ imprisonment.