HKSAR v. WEI SHANDENG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 857/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 857 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Both defendants have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2. The facts of this case are straightforward.  On 4 August this year, the defendants were spotted by police officers loitering around North Point.  The police noted the defendants were looking particularly at buildings under renovation and which had scaffolding erected around them.  Such buildings are easy targets for burglars as scaffolds mean ready‑made ladders. 

3. The defendants were kept under observation for hours from between about 5.30 to about 2 am.  At that time, the police watched the defendants climb up scaffolding of Viking Villas located at 70 Tin Hau Temple Road, North Point.  The police decided to wait and waited on the street level.  Sometime later, the police watched the defendants climb down the scaffolding and try to run. 

4. Both defendants were intercepted by police officers.  1st defendant was found wearing a pair of socks on his hands, and upon a body search, items belonging to a victim who lived in Viking Villas were found on his person.  These items included a mobile phone, a watch, some cash and a necklace.  These items belonged to a victim who luckily slept through the ordeal of the 1st defendant entering her apartment through an open window and ransacking her home.  She identified all the property as hers and ultimately suffers no loss.

5. The 1st defendant under caution co-operated with the police, and he told the police that he and the 2nd defendant discussed the burglary and it was he that climbed through the open window. After stealing what he could, he left through the same window and climbed down the scaffolding.

6. Both defendants have clear records in Hong Kong.  However, that is not surprising.  They are not Hong Kong residents but come from the mainland.  Both are in their mid‑30s and are farmers in their hometown.  Both have families to support, and it is because of their financial obligation they came to Hong Kong to earn some easy money. 

7. Their pleas of guilty today is their best mitigation.  Both have expressed remorse, 2nd defendant specifically in a letter addressed to the court.  In it, he apologises and explains that he has an elderly mother who is of ill health at home who relies on him. 

8. Looking at the facts of this case, both defendants are jointly charged and equally culpable.  I do not differentiate their roles.  Although there are two of them, I accept they are not sophisticated burglars but they did choose an apartment without knowing if anyone was home.  A burglary becomes even more serious if the home that is violated is occupied.  That is an aggravating factor.  The victim was alone at home and female.  I am sure she would have been terrified if she had woken up to find the 1st defendant inside her home. 

9. Defendants, please stand up.  The customary sentence for a burglary of a domestic premise is a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment if there are no aggravating or mitigating factors. However, as I have just said, I find there to be an aggravating factor: the home the defendants chose was occupied.  I will take a starting point of 3 years and 3 months to reflect this fact.  Both defendants have pleaded guilty and are entitled to a discount of one-third from that starting point. After applying that discount, both defendants are sentenced to 2 years and 2 months for this burglary charge.  Understand that sentence?  Have a seat, please.

1ST DEFENDANT: I understand.

2ND DEFENDANT: I understand.