HKSAR v. WONG CHUN MING

DCCC303/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 303 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant has been convicted after trial of one charge of burglary of a doctor/dentist clinic, a non-domestic premises on 17 January this year. I do not propose to repeat the facts. I dealt with that in the evidence against the defendant in full in my verdict. Defendant has a poor criminal record, 10 previous convictions of which 6 are related to burglary. His last three convictions were all burglary offences convicted in 2005, 2006, 2009. Defendant is a repeat offender, a recidivist.

2.  I have been made aware of the defendant’s background.  He is 52 years old, a married man and father of two daughters.  I have before me two letters written by the defendant’s daughters asking for leniency.  They are beautifully written and the defendant should be proud of his children, and he should consider giving up his life of crime for the sake of his children.  He is lucky that despite his long absence from home, his wife has managed to bring up two teenage girls, who are in continued education and have not gone off the rails.

3.  For an offence of this nature, a 2 and a half years’ starting point is the customary sentence, and that is only in the absence of aggravating factors or mitigating factors.  That is reiterated in the authority of Cheng Chi Shing CACC236 of 2000.  That authority discussed the circumstances where a higher starting point can be justified.

4.  Here, as I did with the 1st and 2nd defendants, I found aggravating factors exist.  There was more than one burglar.  There were three acting in concert.  The facts show a degree of professionalism and planning.  There was forcible entry and damage to the property, clear from the photographs, and the loss suffered by the occupants is not inconsiderable.  Lastly, defendant’s previous record is so numerous that enhancement for recidivism is appropriate.

5.  I refer myself to the authority of Chan Pui Chi [1992] 2 HKLRD 830 and Chan Kwong Chun CACC299/2008.  Both these authorities refer to when enhancement for this particular factor is appropriate.  As a result of finding there to be aggravating factors, I will increase the customary starting point by 6 months.

6.  Defendant, please stand up.  I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for this offence.  I see no reason for any discount of this starting point.  For this offence, you are sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.