HKSAR v. HUI SHI MAN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1051/2017

[2018] HKDC 1097

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1051 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  D1 pleads guilty to two charges of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1] (charges 1 & 2) and D2 pleads guilty to three charges of burglary (charges 1, 2 & 3).

2.  Full particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by the defendants.  In summary on three occasions between 26 July 2017 and 27 August 2017 a storeroom on a construction site at No. 100 Tai Ho Road in Tsuen Wan, which was a residential development called “Ocean Pride”, was burgled.  

3.  The storeroom was on the fifth floor of Block 6, Phase 1 and was secured at all material times by a padlock.  CCTV was installed inside the storeroom.  

Charge 1

4.  On 26 July 2017 CCTV captured D1 and D2 entering the storeroom at 8:26 p.m. and stealing eighty-nine rolls of electric wire valued at $103,620. 

Charge 2

5.  On 23 August 2017 CCTV captured D1, D2 and two other males entering the storeroom at 7:45 p.m. and stealing thirty-seven rolls of copper wire valued at $74,000. 

Charge 3

6.  On 27 August 2017 CCTV captured D2 and two other males entering the storeroom at 6:05 p.m. and stealing eleven rolls of copper wire valued at $22,000. 

7.  Still photographs from the CCTV footage have been submitted to court showing the defendants committing the burglaries.

8.  D1 was arrested on 27 August 2017.  Under caution and in a subsequent video recorded interview D1 admitted that on 26 July 2017 D2 paid him $1,000 to help remove some electric wires from a construction site in Tsuen Wan.  D1 also admitted that he was seen together with D2 on the CCTV footage for 23 August 2017. 

9.  D2 was arrested on 19 October 2017.  In a video recorded interview D2 admitted the three burglaries and that for the second and third burglaries he was paid $2,000 each time. 

Mitigation

D1

10.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of D1 by Mr Iu, in particular that D1 committed the burglaries because he was in need of money to pay for the medical bills of his father, who sadly passed away in May this year and that he wishes to be released early to look after his elderly mother. 

11.  I take into account that whilst D1 has previous convictions and committed the offences within three months of his last discharge from DATC he has no convictions for offences of dishonesty.

D2

12.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of D2 by Mr Fung including that due to debt he committed the offences to get quick money and that he wishes to return to the Mainland to help look after his parents.

Starting point

13.  The premises being a storeroom on a construction site, I am satisfied a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for each offence.

Aggravating features

14.  I am satisfied the following aggravating features are present. First, the commission of burglary by two or more persons[2].  Second, goods of relatively high value, which remain unrecovered, were stolen in each burglary, in particular the first burglary where the electric wire was valued at just over $100,000.  Third, returning to the same premises and again stealing valuable property[3]. In the circumstances I increase the starting point for each charge by 6 months’ to 3 years’ imprisonment. 

15.  D2 has previous convictions including convictions for robbery, theft, burglary and handling stolen goods.  Taking into account the last conviction was four years prior to the commission of the present burglaries and before that D2 had stayed out of trouble for over ten years, I do not enhance the starting points by reason of D2’s criminal record.

16.  Giving the defendants full credit for their pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Totality

17.  Although the premises burgled was the same, the offences took place on three separate days over a period of one month and on each occasion valuable goods were stolen.  I am satisfied a total sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment properly reflects D1’s criminality on charges 1 & 2 and 3 years’ imprisonment properly reflects D2’s criminality on charges 1, 2 & 3 and takes into account both D1 and D2’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences, including the total amount stolen in the three burglaries[4].  

Sentence

18.  The defendants are convicted and sentenced as follows:

D1

Charge 1 – 2 years’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 – 2 years’ imprisonment with 8 months consecutive and 16 months concurrent to charge 1;

Total sentence to be served by D1 is 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

D2

Charge 1 – 2 years’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 – 2 years’ imprisonment with 8 months consecutive and 16 months concurrent to charge 1;

Charge 3 – 2 years’ imprisonment with 4 months consecutive and 20 months concurrent to charges 1 & 2;

Total sentence to be served by D2 is 3 years’ imprisonment