|
DCCC 572/2019
[2019] HKDC 1690
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 572 OF 2019
____________
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
WEI QUANBEI (D1) |
|
| |
WEI QUANYAO (D2) |
|
____________
| Present: |
Mr Ryan Wong, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Jasper Kwan, instructed by Au-Yeung, Chan & Ho, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1
Mr Matthew Chong instructed by Eric Cheung & Lau, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2 |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
1. The defendants, visitors from Mainland China, plead guilty to one joint charge of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].
2. In summary in the evening of 25 February this year Ms Pang went out and secured the doors and windows of her home at Flat B, 14/F, Hing Wong Court, Nos 355-357 Portland Street in Mongkok.
3. When Ms Pang returned home she noticed signs of ransacking and prize marks on the window grilles of the daughter’s bedroom. Ms Pang found a Rolex watch; HK$8,000 cash and some foreign currency missing.
4. CCTV footage captured two males walking around the vicinity of Hing Wong Court on the night of 25 February.
5. At around 2010 hours on 26 February the police stopped the defendants outside No. 512 Shanghai Street in Mongkok. The defendants resembled the two males seen in the CCTV footage. D2 was wearing the same T-shirt worn by one of the males seen on the CCTV footage.
6. Upon search gloves, screwdrivers, a torch, cash and foreign currency were found on the defendants.
7. A hotel room key was also found on D2. D1 and D2 were taken to the hotel room, room 307, Oriental Hotel. Inside the room the police recovered the Rolex watch stolen in the burglary together with some foreign currency.
8. In video recorded interviews both D1 and D2 admitted that they were relatives living in the same village in China and came to Hong Kong together.
Mitigation
D1
9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Kwan on behalf of D1, including that D1 is 19 and has a young son aged 5 months to look after[2].
10. Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance[3], provides no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.
11. D1 is not a resident of Hong Kong and is therefore unlikely to be recommended for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre, Detention Centre or Training Centre.
12. Mr Kwan does not ask the court to call for any reports. I am satisfied the antecedent statement and the mitigation of Mr Kwan provides the court with sufficient information about D1.
13. I am satisfied the only method of dealing with D1 is imprisonment.
D2
14. I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Chong on behalf of D2, including that D2 is 22 and came to Hong Kong for sightseeing but was tempted to earn quick money and committed the burglary[4].
15. I have read the mitigation letter written by D2 in which he says he is sorry and asks for a lenient sentence.
16. I take into account both defendants have clear records in Hong Kong.
Starting point
17. The correct starting point for a single burglary of residential premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years’ imprisonment.
18. I take into account that most of the stolen property, including the Rolex watch, was recovered[5].
Aggravating features
19. The defendants used tools to gain entry to the flat. Photographs have been submitted to court showing the window of the daughter’s bedroom. The photographs show that the building was under renovation at the time and covered by scaffolding. The scaffolding can be seen outside the daughter’s bedroom[6].
20. The commission of burglary by two or more persons who use tools to commit the burglary are aggravating features of sentence[7].
21. In HKSAR v Lai Fu Hing the Court of Appeal endorsed an enhancement of 6 months where burglars used tools to commit burglary of a restaurant[8].
22. The defendants having used tools to commit the burglary I enhance the starting point by 6 months to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
23. The defendants arrived in Hong Kong on 21 February 2019[9]. D1 says he came to Hong Kong to do some shopping to buy cosmetic and baby products[10]. D2 says he came for sightseeing[11].
24. Four days after arriving in Hong Kong the defendants committed the burglary. The commission of offences by visitors is also an aggravating feature of sentence[12]. I am satisfied that the starting point should be enhanced by a further 3 months to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
25. Giving the defendants full credit for their pleas of guilty they are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
|
(D. J. DUFTON)
District Judge |
[1] Cap 210.
[2] See §1 of the skeleton submission of D1.
[3] Cap 221.
[4] See §3 of D2’s plea in mitigation of sentence.
[5] The summary of facts does not specify all the foreign currency recovered in the hotel room. In court Mr Wong explained that all the money was recovered save the equivalent of about HK$4,500.
[6] See photographs 75, 77 & 91.
[7] See HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007 at §15 as applied in HKSAR v Lai Fu Hing [2015] 2 HKLRD 351.
[8] [2015] 2 HKLRD 351.
[9] See §4 of the skeleton submission of D1.
[10] See §4 of the skeleton submission of D1.
[11] See §3 of D2’s plea in mitigation of sentence.
[12] See HKSAR v Aguilar Garcia Milner Javier CACC485/2012 at §19.
|