HKSAR v.CHAN KONG FAI

DCCC473/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 473 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Dr. Pak Chun Kwok’s Clinic was situated at Ground Floor, No. 26 Cheong Lok Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon (“the Clinic”). On 9 April 2011 at about 2015 hours, the nurse of the Clinic locked the glass door and the roller-shutter of the Clinic and left the Clinic.

2.  On 10 April 2011 at about 0520 hours, a security guard who was working at the building opposite the Clinic across the street heard some noises from the Clinic.  The security guard saw a person pulling up the roller-shutter of the Clinic and then entering the Clinic.  The roller-shutter was then lowered to the ground.  The security guard then made a report to the police.

3.  A team of police officers arrived at the scene. They pulled up the roller-shutter and saw the Defendant inside the Clinic.  By that time, the Defendant wore gloves and held a crowbar in his left hand.  Upon inquiry, the Defendant admitted he used the crowbar to prise open the doors and enter the Clinic to find some money.  The Defendant was then arrested and cautioned. 

4.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that all the cash found on him was stolen from the Clinic, except $300 which was his own money.  The Defendant claimed that he entered the Clinic and stole money because of momentary greed.  The Defendant admitted the same in the subsequent recorded interview.  Cash of $1,218.20 was found on the Defendant.  The nurse of the Clinic confirmed that some of the drawers and the cashier machine were prised open. The money was stolen from a tin can in one of the drawers.

5.  The Defendant is aged 44 and he has 9 previous convictions, 6 of them were theft related.  The last conviction was in 2004 in respect of the offence of attempted burglary.  The Defendant was unemployed at the time of the offence but he previously worked as a construction site worker.  I am given to understand that the Defendant cohabited with a lady who suffered from psychiatric illness. 

6.  The Defendant has 3 children, all of them are minors.  The Defendant committed the offence due to economic pressure, and according to the Defendant’s solicitor, the Defendant is deeply remorseful for the offence.

7.  The Defendant pleads guilty to such offence of burglary.  According to the established sentencing tariff, the normal starting point for burglary in non-domestic premises is one of   2½years’ imprisonment.  As the Defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence, I give the Defendant one-third discount and I therefore reduce the sentence to one of 20 months’ imprisonment. 

8.  I do not find that the other mitigating factors submitted by the Defendant’s solicitor justify any further reduction in the sentence and 20 months’ imprisonment is the sentence I impose in the present case.