HKSAR v. WAN KA FAI AND ANOTHER

DCCC241/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 241 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendants have pleaded guilty to a joint charge of burglary.

2.  The particulars of the offence are that on 30 December 2009, they entered a refuse collection room at the Kwong Fuk Estate in Tai Po and stole 50 electric plugs and 40 copper hosepipe adaptors, two extension wires, an electronic drill and a piece of cloth.

3.  The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that the supervisor of the refuse room secured the premises in the evening on 30 December, and the following morning she discovered that the premises had been ransacked and the property, the subject of the charge, had been stolen.

4.  Investigations by the police led them to interview the 1st defendant.  Under caution, he admitted that he had gone into the room and stolen the property.

5.  He led the police to recover a number of broken electric plugs and a piece of green cloth at a fire-hose reel compartment on the 12th floor of Kwong Lai House.

6.  I am told by counsel that the two defendants live on the 11th floor of that building.

7.  He subsequently admitted when interviewed that he had sold the copper wire from the plugs to a recycling shop for $150.

8.  The 2nd defendant was implicated because his fingerprints were found on a box inside the room.  He denied having committed the offence.

9.  Both defendants have previous convictions.  In the case of the 1st defendant, he has been before the court on 10 previous occasions.  Notwithstanding the variety of offences that he has committed, he has never been convicted previously of an offence involving dishonesty.

10.  The 2nd defendant, he has been before the court on 13 previous convictions.  Four of those were for burglary, four were for theft, and three of those were for possession of dangerous drugs.

11.  I am told in mitigation in respect of the 1st defendant that he is 34 years of age, born in Hong Kong, lives at the estate where the offence was committed, had previously worked as a cleaning worker earning some $6,500 per month, out of which he gave $2,000 to his parents.  He is single.  He lives with his parents and his brother, the 2nd defendant. 

12.  He is remorseful for his involvement in this matter.  He was cooperative with the police.  He admitted the offence and led the police to recover some of the stolen property.  He indicated that he was pleading guilty to this offence before the trial date.

13.  The instructions of the defence counsel, and this is not contradicted by the prosecution, are that this was an opportunistic theft, that the door of the refuse room was not only unlocked, but it was left open, and he took the opportunity of going in to steal the property, the subject of the charge.

14.  In the case of the 2nd defendant, he is the younger brother.  He is 31 years of age, again, unmarried, works casually, and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. 

15.  The offence to which the defendants have pleaded guilty is a non-domestic burglary, and the usual starting point for an offence of this kind is 2½ years’ imprisonment.  They have both pleaded guilty and they are entitled to the usual one-third discount to reflect their guilty pleas.

16.  However, it seems to me that as non-domestic burglaries go, this is at the lower end of the spectrum.  It was an opportunistic theft and the property that was stolen did not appear to me to be of any particular value.  I see the prosecution put it at $2,350, but having looked at the photographs, it appears to me that the plugs stolen had been discarded and kept in a refuse room. 

17.  I therefore propose to take a starting point of 12 months in this case.  This is a care of sneak theft rather than a burglary. The defendants are entitled to a discount of one-third and so, they will each go to prison for 8 months.