HKSAR v. LEUNG CHYUN CHIU ALSO KNOWN AS LEONG CHYUN CHIU

DCCC 920/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 920 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, contrary to Section 11 of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210.  The premises involved was a shop, not a domestic premise. 

2.   The facts of this case are straightforward.  On 10 August 2015, in Ho Mong Kok Shopping Centre in Portland Street, a security guard noticed that a shop on the 3rd Floor had had its windows broken.  The owner of the shop was notified and later confirmed that there were items stolen, namely some commemorative bank notes and coins, valued at $31,500. 

3.   The CCTV of the shopping centre captured this defendant with another man, the 2nd defendant, walking up towards the 3rd Floor where the shop was located.  Five minutes later, both were seen leaving the premises. 

4.   Obviously the police in the Mong Kok area viewed this CCTV, because seven days later, police officers intercepted this defendant.  They intercepted this defendant in Mong Kok because his appearance was very similar to one of the suspects seen on the CCTV footage.  In fact, the defendant was wearing the same clothes on the day of the arrest as he was wearing on the day of the burglary.  The defendant admitted the offence to the police. 

5.   At the time, he tried to distance himself from the offence by explaining 2nd defendant forced him to do it because he owed him money.  He admitted he smashed the window, but said it was the 2nd defendant who stole the items. 

6.   The 2nd defendant was arrested later, but has since absconded. 

7.   The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.  The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has 14 appearances in court and 18 previous convictions.  There are three offences that involved dishonesty, but the defendant has never been convicted of burglary. 

8.   The defendant’s last conviction was 20 August 2015, three days after his arrest for this offence.  He was convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to 2 weeks’ imprisonment.  It would seem that when he committed this burglary, he was on bail. 

9.   The conviction before that shoplifting was a trafficking and dangerous drugs conviction in June 2012, where he was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.  He was released from that term of imprisonment in October 2014. 

10.   I have heard, in mitigation that the defendant is 30 years old, single, but does have responsibility to look after his elderly father.  His father is now in care in China, but the defendant has to pay for it.  The defendant says it costs $9,000 a month, so he struggles financially to keep his head above water.  His financial desperation led him to commit this offence, and he is now very, very remorseful.  The defendant has written a letter in mitigation conveying this message to the court. 

11.   All that can be said on the defendant’s behalf has been said. 

12.   I have taken into account the facts of the case, the loss suffered, damage to the shop, mitigation put forward, and a plea of guilty.  Normally, a starting point for a burglary of a non-domestic premise would be 2 and a half years’ imprisonment, where there is no aggravating or mitigating factors.  Although there are two burglars, and the defendant was on bail for shoplifting at the time, on this occasion I will not increase the normal starting point.

13.   After taking this 2 year and 6 months starting point and reducing it by one-third for the defendant’s plea, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment for this offence.