HKSAR v. SHAO HUNG

DCCC 708/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 708 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In these proceedings the defendant Shao Hung is charged with, pleaded guilty to and convicted of one count of “Burglary”, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

Facts

2.  Some time after mid-night on 15 July 2015, Miss Wang was alone sleeping in her home at unit Cubicle B on the 4th floor of a building in Tsuen Wan when she heard noises from outside her window.  She then saw the defendant, the occupant of Cubicle F on the same floor, standing outside of the window, holding onto the window frame.  His right-foot had entered the Cubicle but his left-foot was on the clothes-hanging racks outside her window.  She shouted for help and the defendant immediately climbed back to his cubicle.

3.  Miss Wang made a report to the police and subsequently the defendant was arrested in his own cubicle.

4.  Under caution the defendant admitted to have climbed into Miss Wang’s Cubicle with the intent to steal her underwear.  After he had inserted his foot into the window of her cubicle, he found the window was too small for him to get inside.

5.  Inside the defendant’s own cubicle, the police officers seized a pair of brassieres and five pairs of ladies underpants.

Discussions

6.  Although the facts revealed that the defendant would not have been able to completely enter into the cubicle, by the time he was seen, one of his feet had entered through the window.  The offence had been completed in a technical sense.  In any event, the technical detail probably makes no difference to the victim.  A woman sleeping alone in her flat, and for that matter, any private individual resting in his or her home in the middle of night, has a right to enjoy the solitude, the peace, the quiet and not to be disturbed.

7.  The defendant had been in breach of her right to privacy.  That the victim was a woman, alone in her flat, probably rendered the crime a more serious one since the shock and fear of the sight of a man trying to get inside her home would be considerable.

8.  There is a very clear line of authority on sentencing for burglary into domestic premises.  In the absence of aggravating factors, the starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment[1].

9.  In the present case, I accept that the defendant was not a professional, the burglary was committed without much planning and no force was used on the victim.  Although he had admitted to the fetish of stealing women’s underwear for his collection, I accept that there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had specifically targeted the victim.

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is aged 45.  He has a clear record.  He had been gainfully employed as a storekeeper prior to his arrest. I take into account of the letters of mitigation submitted by his siblings and his priest and accept that he is a relatively simple man with poor social skills and that he had committed an offence by reason of his fetish for collecting female underwear.

11.  The background report and the psychological assessment also support the above findings.  He has described as a timid and socially inept person, withdrawn and lonely.  It has been suggested that he meant no harm to victim owner, but the fact remains that he had entered into another person’s flat in the middle of the night.  His real intention, I am sure, is no consolation to the victim.

12.  Having considered all the relevant matters, especially the fact that the crime had been committed in a technical sense, I would adopt a lower starting point of 30 months’, reduced to 20 to reflect his guilty plea.

13.  Taking into account of the psychologist’s view that his chance of re-offending is low to moderate and the good words put in by his family, I will exercise my discretion of clemency by further reducing his sentence by 2 months.

14.  The total sentence for the present offence is therefore 18 months.  I urge the defendant to seriously consider his position after his release; he would need all the help he can get.