HKSAR v. TAM CHUN

DCCC481/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.481 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of burglary and 1 charge of attempted burglary. He is 19 years old.

Facts

2.  The defendant confessed to charges 1 to 3 after his arrest for charge 4.

Charge 4

3.  At about 2:48am on 2^nd March 2011, the defendant was seen by Police officers coming out of a rear lane next to a computer shop. The defendant made an about turn upon seeing the approaching Police vehicle. Feeling suspicious, Police officers intercepted the defendant. Upon searching, a hammer of about 1 foot long was found from the defendant’s sleeve. A screwdriver, a pair of gloves and a torch were found from the pockets of the defendant’s trousers.

4.  Upon interrogation, the defendant told Police officers that he had just used the screwdriver to prize open the electric roller shutter switch box of the above mentioned computer shop. The manager of the shop was contacted and he confirmed that nothing was stolen.

5.  In subsequent cautioned interview, the defendant admitted to prizing open the electric roller shutter switch box of the computer shop.

6.  In a cautioned video recorded interview, the defendant confessed to having burgled the 3 locations in charges 1-3 and had stolen a mobile phone, cash of about $800 and cash of about $80-90 from the 3 locations respectively.

7.  In all those 3 locations, the electric roller shutters switch boxes had been prized open.

Previous convictions

8.  The defendant has a clear record.

Migration

9.  The defendant is 19, educated up to Form 7 level. He comes from a broken family, his parents divorcing in 1997. The defendant is living with his mother in Tin Shui Wai. Relationship between mother and son is not good, there is also much tension between the defendant and his mother’s present boyfriend. The defendant’s mother is a housewife and financially dependent on the boyfriend.

10.  It is submitted in mitigation that the defendant is an impressionable person. His peers had been calling him useless and worthless, and the defendant has been misled into believing what they say, making his life truly miserable.

11.  The defendant worked as a kitchen apprentice between September to December 2010, earning about $8,000 per month. The defendant resigned from this job due to his skin condition and continued itchiness. He relied on his savings until it ran out. The defendant became desperate and he did not have much family support. The defendant took part in some sort of parallel import scheme to try to make some money. He had borrowed money from financial institutions to take part in the scheme but in the end he was scammed and lost all the money. The people from the financial companies were making threatening phone calls to the defendant. Very naively and perhaps influenced by what he saw on the television, the defendant decided that the only way to obtain money to repay the financial companies was to commit the present offences.

12.  Mr. Man for the defendant submits that the offences were committed in a short period of time without much sophistication or planning involved. There are no aggravating factors and the total value of stolen goods was less than $2,000. The defendant is young and remorseful, he cooperated with the Police with frank admission of guilt.

13.  The cases of R v Wong Man[1] and Secretary for Justice v Tsang Hon Yin[2], Anthony was submitted by Mr. Man, confirming the guideline sentence of 2.5 years’ imprisonment for burglary of non-domestic premises. Mr. Man also asks that the sentences to be made fully concurrent.

Sentence

14.  The proper starting point for non-domestic premises burglary is 2.5 years’ imprisonment. I see no exceptional circumstances in the present case to allow me to depart from the well settled sentencing guidelines.

15.  The defendant is 19, he is relatively young and had a clear record. I note that he is from a broken family and that it had not been easy dealing with the relationships between him and his mother’s and her present boyfriend. I fully sympathize with the defendant on this and will in due course reflect that in my sentence.

16.  There was some mention by Mr. Man about these being opportunistic crimes. I disagree. These are not opportunistic crimes. As demonstrated in charge 4, the defendant brought along a hammer, a screwdriver, gloves and a torch light to commit the offence. There was definitely some planning and the defendant was quite well prepared.  

17.  Furthermore, in all 4 charges, the electric roller shutter switch boxes had been prized open in order to gain access to the shops. This is another piece of evidence showing some degree of sophistication and planning.

18.  Bearing in mind all the circumstances, I will first of all adopt the guideline starting point of 2 and a half year’s imprisonment on all 4 charges, reducing each of them to 20 months’ imprisonment in recognition of the defendant’s plea of guilty.

Totality

19.  The defendant committed the offences in a short period of time, he was on a spree. The defendant was however of clear record. He is relatively young and was going through a difficult time in his life. As I mentioned above, I will incorporate these mitigating factors in the eventual sentence. Therefore, I order that 3 months of each of charge 2, 3 and 4 be served consecutively to the sentence of charge 1. In other words,  the defendant is sentenced to a total of 29 months imprisonment.

[1] [1993] 1 HKC 80

[2] [2004] HKCU 1497