HKSAR v. CHOY WAI MING

DCCC 325/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 325 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary.

2.  On 4 February 2017, at around 12 pm, Madam Luo (PW1) checked and left her residence at Yau Lung Building in Kowloon City (“the premises”).  When PW1 returned to the premises after midnight, she discovered the iron gate of the premises bore prise marks, the wooden door of the premises was half-opened, and the premises was also ransacked.  She found her jewelleries, one Rolex watch and some cash missing, the total value of these stolen properties was about $200,000.  

3.  On 5 February 2017, the defendant pawned PW1’s Rolex watch at a pawnshop.  CCTV in the vicinity of the premises captured the defendant entered and left the building of that premises four times in the afternoon of 4 February 2017.  The defendant was subsequently located and arrested.  When he was arrested, he was still wearing the same clothing captured by the CCTV on 4 February 2017.

4.  The defendant is aged 35.  He has two previous convictions for burglary and theft.

5.  In mitigation, Mr Chiu, counsel for the defendant, says at the time of the offence, the defendant, a construction site worker, did not have sufficient work.  However, his wife was pregnant at the time and he also had to take care of his mother.  He was hence in financial difficulties.  The defendant’s wife gave birth to a girl in August this year.

6.  Mitigation letters written by the defendant and his wife respectively have been submitted to and duly considered by the court.

7.  Burglary of domestic premises is a serious offence.  The usual starting point for an adult with a clear record committing the offence would be 3 years’ imprisonment.  In the present case, the value of the stolen property was quite large.  The defendant has two previous convictions for dishonest offences.

8.  Having taken into account these two factors, I adopt 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.  Financial difficulty cannot be a mitigating factor in this case to reduce the sentence. I will give the defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.