HKSAR v. POON KIT MAN

DCCC975/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 975 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary involving domestic premises.

2.  The offence was committed on 24 July at Flat D on the 1st Floor, No. 10 Headland Road, Repulse Bay.  The premises were part of a complex at No.8-10 Headland Road, Repulse Bay and the defendant was employed at that complex as a security guard. 

3.  On 24 July the defendant was working as a security guard.  At the relevant time, Madam Allman Tamare Marie and her family members were living at Flat D.  At 4.30 in the morning of 24 July the victim was in the bedroom of her premises when she heard noises coming from the dining room.  She came out of the bedroom and saw a person standing inside her flat and flashing around a torch.  She shouted out at that person who then closed a drawer and fled from the premises via the main door.  Outside in the lights of the common corridor the victim was able to recognise the burglar as the defendant.  CCTV camera footage also showed the defendant walking to and from the premises at the material time.  The defendant was subsequently arrested and when interviewed by the police admitted having entered the premises with the intention of stealing.  He said that the month previously in June 2011 he found a key which had been left in the keyhole of the main door of the flat.  He said he opened a drawer near the main door and searched for valuables.  A house search was later conducted at the defendant’s flat and the key which he had used was recovered. 

4.  The defendant has a clear record.  He is 46 years of age and was educated to Form 7 level in Hong Kong.  He has worked as a security guard for a number of years for a number of different companies. Placed before the court have been two letters of reference from senior personnel employed in the companies for whom the defendant has previously worked.  They found him to be a reliable, hard-working, conscientious and professional in the discharge of his duties.  They were shocked to learn of his involvement in the current offence and it was opined that the defendant must have acted on momentary impulse. 

5.  This is not any domestic burglary; it is a serious offence.  To find somebody in your flat at 4.30 in the morning must be a terrifying experience.  As counsel for the defendant has acknowledged, the fact that the defendant was employed at this complex as a security guard is an aggravating feature.  You were paid to protect the property and persons who live within the complex.  The suggestion that the offence was impulsive is rather undermined by the fact that you found the key to the main door of the premises the previous month. 

6.  The defendant is a married man and he has a 9 year old son.  The inevitable prison sentence will be not only very hard for the defendant but also for his family. 

7.  The appropriate starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years’ imprisonment.  The aggravating features in this case are the fact that it was committed at 4.30 in the morning and the fact that the defendant is a security guard.  The defendant, on the other hand, has a clear record.  He is married with a 9 year old son and his previous employers speak very highly of him and have always found him totally reliable, and I accept that they find that this offence for this defendant is totally out of character and they were shocked to learn of it. 

8.  Taking into consideration the various features of the case I have decided therefore not to increase the usual starting point. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce it to 2 years to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.