HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK CHUEN

DCCC 513/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 513 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In these proceedings the defendant Chan Kwok-chuen, D2, is convicted of a count of “Burglary” after trial.

Facts

2.  The prosecution’s case, according to my finding, was that the defendants acted together to burgle in the noodle shop situated in Sai Yee Street and stole therefrom a quantity of cash, a safe with money inside and some other properties particularised therein the charge.

3.  I also found that during the burglary, D2 stood on the outside as a lookout and he assisted the other defendant in the transporting of the stolen properties from the Sai Yee Street back to D1’s home via a taxi.  When attempts to force open the safe failed, D2 also brought the safe, together with D1, up to rooftop of the building where D1 lived with an intention of forcing it open by using a hammer. 

4.  It was fortunate that there were two police officers who happened to be on duty that night at the rooftop.  D1 was arrested at the scene whereas D2 made good his escape. Afterwards, he was subsequently arrested, and upon the evidence of D1 and the other undisputed evidence of this case, he was convicted of the charge.

Sentencing Considerations

5.  The tariff for burglary of a commercial premises is 30 months’ imprisonment.  This has been held to be good law for a long time. Neither the prosecution nor defence sought to dispute that.  In the present case, I do not see any reason to differ.

6.  I also considered the background of D2 as revealed in the antecedent statement and the mitigation of his lawyer.  I found that D2 is a mature man of 36 and he has been convicted 22 times, most of which are dishonesty related.  He cannot claim any credit for his age or the lack of previous conviction.

7.  Although I have found that D1 obviously played a more active role, D2 was party to the planning, he played a crucial role in the execution of the burglary and the subsequent attempt to dispose of the loot.

8.  In the circumstances I will adopt a starting point of 30 months.  I do not see any other valid mitigating factors so he is sentenced to a total of 30 months.