HKSAR v. WONG YUK CHUN (ALSO KNOWN AS WONG HO CHUN)

DCCC 1053/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1053 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.  Both of these were burglaries involving restaurants that were under renovation at the time of the burglary. 

2.   The 1st charge was committed on 22 August last year when the defendant entered a ground floor restaurant in Hung Hom at about 6 am.  CCTV camera from a nearby shop captured the defendant tampering with the lock and entering at about 6.11 am.  The owner of the contractor responsible for the renovations discovered later that same morning that four tools had been stolen from a wooden box placed inside the premises.  He estimates the value of those tools is around HK$3,000.

3.   Charge 2 was committed on 30 August, a few days later, again a ground floor restaurant under renovation was targeted in Ho Man Tin area.  This time the police actually had the defendant under observation as he cut the lock of the wooden door securing the premises.  The police had seen him a few minutes earlier, about 4.15 am, looking furtive so decided to follow him.  This police officer witnessed the defendant cut the lock to the wooden sliding door and enter the premises for approximately five minutes before he came out again.  He stopped and searched the defendant.

4.   The defendant had found nothing of value inside those premises to steal.  The only tools on him were in his bag and they consisted of a pair of clippers as well as some gloves.

5.   Under caution, the defendant admitted both offences.

6.   The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. 

7.   The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has three previous convictions, one similar.  However, two of those three including a burglary charge which was committed when he was 14 years old. He is now 27 years old.

8.   Defence counsel, Mr Chan, has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.

9.   I have had letters from the defendant and his mother explaining why the defendant committed the offences, expressing his remorse and asking for leniency.

10.   The defendant is the youngest of two siblings and he lives with his mother.  His father has passed away.  His mother is a housewife and I assume financially reliant on the defendant and his elder brother who has his own family. 

11.   The defendant is a qualified man, he can get gainful employment.  He is a measurement technician as well as a licenced crane operator.  His mother has said that ever since he has been in the workforce, he has contributed to the household.  However, the summer of these offences, in August 2016, the defendant’s employer at the time had no work because of a dispute with a principal contractor, so the defendant was temporarily laid off.  However, at the time his mother still needed money for household expenditure.

12.   The defendant was too ashamed to tell his mother that he had no income at that time.  In addition, he had promised his father before he passed away that he would look after his mother.  So rather stupidly, he committed these offences to find some money quickly.  He chose shops that were under renovation because he knew that there was little security, they were easy to break into and if there were valuable tools or construction material found inside, he could easily sell them.  In addition, with such premises, there was no chance he would confront anybody in the course of the burglary.

13.   I accept that these facts were not the most serious set of facts for a burglary.  I also accept that these shops under renovation would have been empty and the items that he could have found would not have been of particularly high value. 

14.   Normally, a starting point of 30 months would be appropriate for a burglary of a non-domestic premise where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors.  

15.   Defendant, please stand up.

16.   I have considered everything I have heard in mitigation, your pleas to these charges, the fact that you are not a man with a clear record but the serious convictions were when you were very young. Also in view of the premises being under renovation at the time, I would take a slightly lower starting point.  Instead of 30 months, I take a starting point for both charges of 24 months; 2 years. 

17.   You pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 8 months.  Once that discount is applied, for both offences, you are sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment. 

18.   I take into account there are two burglaries here, but I also consider the totality principle.  I would order that 2 months of Charge 2 be served consecutive to Charge 1 and the balance concurrent.  Therefore, the total for two charges will be a sentence of 1 year and 6 months.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes.