HKSAR v. WONG CHI HONG

DCCC 1103/2024

[2025] HKDC 1195

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1103 OF 2024

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant faces a charge of "Theft" (Charge 1) and a charge of "Burglary" (Charge 2). He pleaded guilty to Charge 2.

2.  I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charge 1 in the court file; not to be proceeded against the defendant without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

3.  Mr. Ng (PW8) operated a "10-dollar items" booth at the Podium, 2^nd Floor, Shun Lee Shopping Centre (Phase 1), Shun Lee Estate, Sau Mau Ping ("the Booth").

4.  About 5:00 p.m. on 12 May 2024, before closing the Booth, PW8 checked the cash box and confirmed that there were $150 inside.  He locked the cash box and covered it with a piece of cloth before leaving.  The Booth was also covered by canvas and surrounded by movable barricades.

5.  PW8 returned to the Booth at 8:00 a.m. on 13 May 2024.  He found prying marks on the cash box and the $150 inside missing.

6.  CCTV footage captured the defendant trying to move the barricades and to pull the canvas of the Booth in the early hours on 13 May 2024.  He was unsuccessful and left.  He soon returned with a pink bucket.  He turned the bucket upside down and stepped on it, climbing over the barricades and sneaking into the Booth. He then pulled down the canvas and ransacked the place.  Finally, he stretched his arm and pulled the bucket near him.  He climbed over the barricades, stepped on the bucket and left.

Arrest and admissions

7.  About 5:55 p.m. on 14 May 2024, PC 19032 arrested the defendant.  In a video recorded interview conducted in the afternoon on the following day, the defendant, in the presence of his father, admitted having climbed into the Booth and stolen $150 from it.  He claimed having spent the entire sum on cigarettes and food.  He also identified himself in the CCTV footage depicting the surrounding area of the Booth.

Mitigation & Sentence

8.  The defendant is 34 and has 7 conviction records, which included 10 "Burglary" offences and 2 "Theft" offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Chong informed me that the defendant is a moderate mentally retarded person having completed Form 3 in a special school.  His parents are divorced and he resides with his mother and younger sister.

9.  In mitigation, Mr. Chong submitted that the defendant works at his father's air-conditioner shop performing odd jobs earning about $3,000 per month.  He committed the present offence without giving any thoughts to its consequences.  He is remorseful and will not re-offend.  In view of the defendant's intelligence and criminal record, I decided to call for a clinical psychologist's report on his level of mental retardation and ability to understand the consequences of being a recidivist as well as what can be done in terms of his rehabilitation.

10.  The clinical psychologist's report revealed that the defendant has an IQ of 56, which falls within the range of mild intellectual functioning.  The psychologist (Madam Kam) finds him especially weak in verbal abilities; however, he has adequate cognitive ability to understand that stealing is unlawful and socially unacceptable.  He also demonstrated knowledge of the consequences of his stealing behaviour.

11.  Madam Kam takes the view that the defendant's repeated stealing behaviour was related to his greed for material gain, impulsiveness, poor judgement, lack of consequential thinking and impoverished problem-solving abilities which are likely exacerbated by his limited intelligence.  Madam Kam recommends the defendant to receive psychological treatment which focuses on relapse prevention skills such as building insight into his stealing behaviour and introducing behavioural strategies to manage his urge to steal.  Engaging his former hostel carer Madam Poon or family members in the treatment process could also be beneficial for skills consolidation.  Social worker assistance in tangible life arrangements is also essential for the defendant's long-term wellbeing.

12.  In the present case, the defendant acted alone.  He stole a small sum of cash from a booth store located in a public housing estate.  On the other hand, he did not go unprepared.  After his failure to get into the Booth, he came up with a plan (albeit a primitive one) by bringing with him a bucket to assist him in climbing over the barricades.

13.  The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment.  The defendant is no doubt a repeated offender.  Notwithstanding his mental disability, I see no reason not to increase the starting point to 36 months.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment for Charge 2.

14.  As recommended by the clinical psychologist, I invite the Commissioner of Correctional Services to arrange for the defendant to receive the necessary psychological treatment and involving his former hostel carer Madam Poon and/or his family members in the treatment process should circumstances permit.  Post-release follow-up by social worker on tangible life arrangements is also desirable.