HKSAR v. XU DENGFENG (ALSO KNOWN AS CHEN FENG)

DCCC 897/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 897 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  Xu Dengfeng you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1] and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance[2].

2.  In summary in the early hours of 26 July this year the police saw you trying to break into the Master Cut Salon on Castle Peak Road.  The police saw you standing on a canopy and with what looked like a screwdriver, you were banging on the wall of the salon where there was a blocked off window. 

3.  Photographs of the salon have been submitted to court from which can be seen the canopy from where you tried to enter the salon and the damage caused to the salon, in particular photographs 6, 8, 21, 22 & 27.

4.  When you climbed down to the ground floor the police arrested you.  A search of your rucksack revealed an array of house breaking tools including a hammer; two screwdrivers; a saw, 16 blades and four torches together with gloves and face masks.  In a video interview you admitted attempting to break into the salon by using a hammer and screwdriver to prize open the window. 

Mitigation

5.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Ms Chan, including that you have an elderly mother in the Mainland who you visit regularly and that you are remorseful.   

Starting point

6.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. 

7.  I am satisfied the starting point is not to be reduced by reason of the fact that you were arrested before succeeding in breaking into the salon and was therefore unable to steal anything.   No doubt had you not been seen by the police you would have continued with your attempt to break into the salon. 

Aggravating features

8.  I am told you brought to Hong Kong RMB2000 to buy baby powder and medicine hoping to resell the goods in China.  You did not have enough money to stay in a hostel therefore you slept in parks and at the pier.  On the morning of 26 July you woke up early to find your wallet and iPhone missing.  With no money you decided to burgle to obtain some money.  In a video interview you gave the same reason for committing the burglary.

9.  As indicated in court I do not accept this explanation for the burglary.  You have elected not to give evidence to support your mitigation.

10.  I am satisfied by bringing tools to Hong Kong you came to Hong Kong for the purpose of committing crime.  In addition, albeit over 10 years ago when you came to Hong Kong illegally, I note you also committed burglary. 

11.  This time you came to Hong Kong legally on 21 July and were permitted to stay for 7 days.  Visitors who come to Hong Kong thinking they can steal to support their livelihood must be deterred (see for example HKSAR v Aguilar Garcia Milner Javier CACC485/2012).

12.  The commission of offences by visitors who come intending to commit crime is an aggravating feature of sentence.  I increase the starting point by 6 months to 3 years imprisonment.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.