HKSAR v. CHAN WAI KEUNG

DCCC 1072/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1072 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary. 

2.   The facts of this case are very straightforward.  At about 1 am on 5 October the defendant was caught red-handed climbing out of a shop premises.  Police officers watched him opening a window climb out and down into a rear lane in Nam Cheong Street, Sham Shui Po.  He was intercepted before he could get away. 

3.   The police officers searched the defendant and he admitted that on his person he had money that he had taken from the shop.  HK$2,000 odd and RMB20 was recovered.  The shop suffered no loss; everything was recovered. 

4.   The defendant, under caution, made a full admission to the police. 

5.   The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.

6.   The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He does have six previous convictions, three of which are burglaries. However, his last conviction of burglary and his last conviction full stop was 12 years ago.  

7.   The defendant is now 53 years old.  He is married and he and his wife are parents to two-and-a-half-year-old twins.  The defendant’s wife and children live in the mainland.  The defendant is ostensibly the family breadwinner.  He supports himself and his family on CSSA assistance and part-time employment of about $1,500 per month, I am sure not nearly enough to support his wife and the two young children.  This has led to him committing this offence despite staying out of trouble for over 12 years.

8.   I have a letter from the defendant.  He explains he wanted to better the lives of his family by being able to provide them with more.  He is remorseful.   He wants to be reunited with his family and promises not to reoffend.  To show he can be a useful member of the society, he has registered himself to be an organ donor.

9.   Miss Chong has said all she can on his behalf in mitigation. 

10.   There is guidelines for burglary of a non-domestic premises such as this shop space.   It has been said time and time again a two-and-a-half-year starting point is appropriate where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors.  There are, in my view, having heard mitigation and seen the facts, no mitigating or aggravating factors that exist. 

11.   Defendant, please stand up.

12.   I will therefore take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  You have pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third.  After that discount is applied, you are sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.