HKSAR v. SO KWONG MAN

DCCC 297/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 297 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Burglary" (Charges 1 to 2) and 1 charge of "Theft" (Charge 3).

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

2.  Mr. TSE (PW1) is a security guard of Yee Hing Mansion at Leighton Road, Causeway Bay ("Scene 1").  Whilst on duty, he would store his personal properties in a cabinet at the guard post located on the Ground Floor.  The cabinet is always locked.

3.  About 8:25 pm on 11 November 2014, PW1 left the guard post to go to the washroom.  He returned 20 minutes later and discovered his 2 mobile phones (total value $5,000), cash in the sum of HK$400 and RMB410 missing from the cabinet.

4.  CCTV footage of Scene 1 captured the defendant walking towards the guard post at the material time.  He then left via the fire escape.

Charge 2

5.  Madam PANG (PW3) is a manager of Fung Shing Restaurant situated at Pearl City Mansion, Paterson Street, Causeway Bay ("Scene 2").

6.  About 10:45 am on 5 December 2014, PW3 was standing in front of her locker in the changing room preparing for work.  She saw the defendant searching Locker No.50, which belonged to Madam YU (PW2).  PW3 asked the defendant what he was doing.  The defendant said he was looking for someone.  He then walked out of the changing room and left via the rear staircase.  When he reached the 1^st Floor, he discarded a wallet on the floor.  PW2 confirmed the wallet belonging to her; she had placed it in her locker.  PW2 also found cash in the sum of $2,000 missing.

7.  CCTV footage of Scene 2 captured the defendant entering the restaurant via the rear staircase and walking towards the changing room.

Charge 3

8.  Daniel's Restaurant is situated at Sun On Mansion, Cannon Street, Causeway Bay ("Scene 3").  The restaurant has a rear entrance (normally left unlocked) leading to the staff lockers and washrooms.

9.  About 1:15 am on 8 February 2015, Mr. CHAN (PW4), an employee of the restaurant, was on his way to the staff lockers.  He saw the defendant searching his (PW4's) locker.  PW4 asked the defendant what he was doing.  The defendant said he wanted to use the washroom.  At that time, the defendant took out from his trouser pocket a ring and a bracelet, then placed them on a table.  PW4 later confirmed that they belonged to him and were originally kept in his locker.

10.  The defendant left Scene 3 via its rear entrance.  PW4 and a colleague followed him and called the Police at the same time.  The defendant was intercepted at a bus stop at Canal Road.

11.  In his video-recorded interviews, the defendant admitted having committed the burglary offences in Charges 1 and 2.  He also described how he committed each burglary. Regarding Charge 3, he gave an explanation for his presence at Scene 3 and how he came into possession of PW4's personal properties.

Mitigation & Sentence

12. The defendant is 25. He has 2 conviction records, both of which are "Theft" offences (dated 2010 and 2012 respectively). For his previous offences, he received a Community Service Order and a Probation Order. He has never been to prison before.

13. Defence lawyer Mr. HUI informed me that the defendant was born in the mainland. He came to Hong Kong at the age of 7. The defendant has been working as a waiter in the past 3 years. He got married last year. A bundle of mitigation letters written by the defendant and his family members was placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

14. In mitigation, Mr. HUI submitted that the seriousness of the 3 offences in the present case is at the low end of the scale. The defendant had no advance planning; he did not use any tools or break into any premises. His curiosity led to his greed, he then foolishly committed the offences. Mr. HUI informed me that both the defence and prosecution have reached an agreement on compensation. The defendant is ready and willing to compensate the victims in Charges 1 and 2[1].

15. Whilst I accept that each offence (when assessed individually) may appear to be an opportunistic crime, I cannot overlook the fact that the defendant committed all 3 offences within just 3 months.

16. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. For Charges 1 and 2, I adopt 27 months' imprisonment as the starting point for each charge. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 18 months. I will further reduce the sentence for each charge to 15 months to reflect the compensation aspect. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. The sentence for each charge is 15 months' imprisonment.

17. For Charge 3, it is the defendant's 3^rd conviction of "Theft". I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 8 months.

18. Bearing in mind the totality principle and the fact that the defendant committed 3 offences of the same nature within a period of 3 months, I make the following order :-

(i) 3 months in Charge 2 to run consecutive to Charge 1; and

(ii) 2 months in Charge 3 to run consecutive to Charges 1 and 2.

Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 20 months.