HKSAR v. LUI WAI LOK

DCCC939/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 939 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This morning, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  The facts admitted by the defendant revealed that on 13 July 2010, the defendant committed the burglary in his own home.  At the time, he lived there, which is a two-storey village house, with his family members including his parents, his elder brothers and his sister-in-law.  There were altogether six rooms in that house and only the occupants of the room had the key to it.  The occupants would lock their own rooms when they left the house.  On the day in question, the defendant returned to the house and found that there was no one inside.  As he was in debt, he decided to burgle his own house and he then used an axe to break open the locked gate of the staircase which led to the rooms on the upper floor.  The defendant also used a crowbar to break into each of his family members’ rooms and stole therefrom virtually anything which was of value.

3.  The properties taken are particularised in the charge and the items included cash of about HK$221,000, some jewellery, a watch, mobile phones and a computer.  In order to divert attention, the defendant also made a ransacking sign in his own room.  He then hid the stolen properties in a reservoir nearby and in the house.

4.  The matter was discovered by the defendant’s elder brother when he searched the house a few days after the event and found some of his wife’s jewellery inside the defendant’s luggage bag.  When police arrived, the defendant made frank admissions to the police and he later also led the police to recover the stolen properties.  Today, the prosecution confirmed that all the stolen items particularised in the charge have been recovered and returned to their respective owners.

5.  The defendant is now aged 29 and is single.  As revealed in the summary of facts, he lived with his family members in the house prior to his arrest.  He stopped his schooling at the age of 16.  Thereafter, he started working as a cleaning worker.  At the time of his arrest, he was a supervisor of a cleaning company, earning about HK$9,000 per month. 

6.  Mr Tam, who acts for the defendant, told the court that other than working in the company, the defendant also started his own business in Shenzhen.  However, that business of running a bar was unsuccessful which then led the defendant to borrow money from some mainlanders.  Mr Tam said that the defendant borrowed a sum of about HK$200,000 from these mainlanders who later turned out to have some triad affiliations. It was said that on 9 July 2010, when the defendant went to the mainland, he was detained by these mainlanders for a few days and it was only upon his promise that he would repay the debt was he then released back into Hong Kong.  Feeling helpless and feeling unable to raise any money, the defendant then committed the present offence.  Mr Tam said that the defendant is very remorseful as he could see that his mother is very depressed and he feels sorry for his mother and his other family members. 

7.  The defendant has been convicted on six previous occasions, two for going equipped for stealing but there is nothing similar. This is his first burglary conviction.  It was urged on the defendant’s behalf that a lenient sentence be passed as he made full confessions and he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  It was also said that the defendant’s family members have already forgiven him.  Mr Tam has provided to the court two letters written by the defendant’s family members which indicated the same.

8.  It is well-established that for burglary of domestic premises, the tariff is one of 3 years.  Although the defendant burgled the rooms of his own family members, this did not detract from the fact that he did use an axe and a crowbar to gain access to the rooms in order to steal the properties, and viewed in this context, he was no different from a stranger-burglar who burgled the house.  In fact, being one who lived there himself, he was afforded the opportunity to enter the house and, like what happened in this case, to burgle the house while all the others were not at home.  However, I do not propose to alter the tariff merely because of this and I shall adopt 3 years as the starting point.

9.  The financial reason given for the commission of the offence is no excuse.  However, as the defendant made full admissions to the police from the very start and he led the police to recover the stolen properties, this shows that he is genuinely remorseful and I am going to give him a 4-month discount for this. 

10.  Therefore, for his plea, the starting point of 36 months will be reduced to 24 months.  As I have indicated, a further reduction of 4 months will be given for his co-operation with the police and for his leading the police to recover the stolen properties.  The defendant is therefore to serve a term of 20 months’ imprisonment.

11.  Defendant, stand up.  You are therefore to serve a term of 20 months’ imprisonment.