HKSAR v. POON HOI SHUI

DCCC 250/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 250 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. Between 9 and 11 January, he entered part of a building known as Basement in the Boon Kin Village, Tseung Kwan O, and stole 25 metal pipes, 23 metal parts, 4 heat pipes and 2 electric wires valued at $1,730.

2.  The owner of the goods is a Mr Suen and he runs a decoration company.  He rents the Basement referred to in the charge and he uses it to store decoration tools and materials.  Prior to the commission of this offence, the defendant did in fact work for Mr Suen as a part-time technician for about eight or nine months, and that employment ceased in December 2012.  As an employee, he was entrusted with the key to the door of the premises but he failed to return the key when his employment ceased.

3.  On 11 January, at about 1730 hours, police officers were patrolling near to a public toilet on Shung Yan Circuit in Kwun Tong.  They saw the defendant walking along Shung Yan Circuit, carrying a bag in each of his hands.  The officers intercepted and searched the defendant, and inside the two bags they found the property, the subject of the charge.  He admitted that he had stolen the items from the Basement of Mr Suen at about 3.30 that day, and he admitted that he was going to sell them at recycle shops at the Shung Yan Circuit.  

4.  The defendant is 38 years of age and has a clear record.  He was born on the mainland of China but came to Hong Kong in 1987 when he was about 13.  He is married with two children aged 14 and 8, who are in full-time education.  The defendant left school at an early age, and he had only primary school education, and he has worked in a number of positions previously.  For some time, he worked as a security guard and in fact was promoted in that employment.  Unfortunately, in 2006, he contracted diabetes and was unable to work the demanding hours required of a security guard, and so he had to give up that work.  I am told that he knew Mr Suen, the victim in this case.  He had known him for about 10 years and worked for him for the months prior to the commission of the offence.  

5.  A number of letters have been placed before the court: from the defendant’s wife, his parents and his sister.  They are very supportive and complimentary about the defendant’s dedication to the family. There is also a letter from the victim in this case who confirms that he knows the defendant to be remorseful about this offence.  He says that, in his opinion, the defendant is a person of good character and that this offence was committed out of momentary greed.  He requests that the defendant be dealt with leniently.

6.  I am told that the victim has been compensated for this offence, and of course all the property has been recovered.

7.  Counsel will have told the defendant that the normal starting point for offences of this kind, a non-domestic burglary, is a sentence of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is a person of clear record and he admitted this offence immediately when he was stopped by the police.  All the property has been recovered, and somewhat unusually in circumstances such as this, there is a letter of support from the victim.

8.  I accept what has been said that the defendant is very remorseful for this offence and that it was out of character, and that he has a very supporting family, many of whom are in court today. 

9.  In all the circumstances, I have decided to take a starting point of 2 years for this offence and reduce that to a sentence of 16 months to reflect the mitigating features.