HKSAR v. YEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

DCCC 839/2019

[2020] HKDC 640

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 839 OF 2019

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

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

     --------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  There are altogether 4 charges of burglary where D1 and D4 had pleaded guilty for 3 counts respectively: D1, Charges 3, 4 and 5; and D4, Charges 1, 4 and 5. D2 and D3 had each pleaded guilty to 1 count, D2 on Charge 5 and D3 on Charge 3.

2.  Charge 1 (against D4 only), concerning the premises of 48G, Central Park Towers, Tin Shui Wai.  The residents of the premises left at around 6:00 a.m. on 30 January 2019 and returned at about 3:15 p.m., they found that the main door and the door lock had been prized open.  Upon search, some cash coupons, some jewelleries, cash of HK$93,000 and some miscellaneous items had gone missing.

3.  The CCTV cameras of Central Park Towers captured that on 30 January 2019:

(a) The 4th Defendant and 2 males hung around Central Park Towers.

(b) The 4th Defendant and 2 males entered and left different residential blocks.

(c) When they entered the premises, one of the males did not carry any backpack. When they left the estate, the same male carried a backpack.

4.  On Charge 3 (against D1 and D3), concerning the premises of 32H, Block 6, Jubilee Garden, Fo Tan.  Residents left the premises at around 10:20 a.m. on 6 February 2019 and returned at around 8:00 p.m. on the same day, they found that the main door and the door lock had been prized open.  Upon search, some jewelleries including gold spoon with an elephant figure, a watch, some bank cards, credit cards, cash about HK$40,000 and other miscellaneous items had gone missing. 

5.  CCTV camera of Jubilee Garden captured that on 6 February 2019:

(a) A 7-seater vehicle entered the premises. The 3rd Defendant and another male entered the building, and he was wearing a black T-shirt bearing a distinctive logo at the chest.

(b) The 3rd Defendant and the male entered the building and one of them was carrying a backpack.

(c) The 7-seater vehicle later on left Jubilee Garden.

6.  The premises’ owner, positively identified the said backpack to be the one missing from his premises.

7.  On 15 February 2019, a search was conducted in the 1st Defendant’s home in Tin Shui Wai and the spoon belonging to the premises’ owner and also a blue blazer worn by the 3rd Defendant at the time of the offence had been found. 

8.  On Charge 4 (against D1 and D4), concerning the premises of 15B, Regency Park, Kwai Chung.  The residents left at around 5:30 p.m. on 7 February 2019 and returned at around 11:00 p.m., they found that the main door and the door lock had been prized open.  Upon search, 8 watches, 6 rings, 4 earrings, 3 gold coins and 20 red pockets containing some cash, 1 suitcase and 1 bracelet had gone missing. 

9.  CCTV camera of Regency Park captured that on 7 February 2019:

(a) A 7-seater vehicle entered the premises. The 1st Defendant was the driver.

(b) The 4th Defendant and another male alighted from the vehicle, and then the male and the 4th Defendant took a lift and exited as they reached the floor. They entered the lift and then while the male made a phone call, the 4th Defendant was holding a small suitcase.

(c) Then the 1st Defendant drove the 7-seater vehicle and picked the male and the 4th Defendant up, and then they left Regency Park.

10.  The premises’ owner positively identified the said suitcase to be the one missing from Flat 15B. 

11.  On 15 February 2019, upon search of the 1st Defendant’s home, the silver bracelet and the diamond ring belonging to the premises’ owner were recovered.

12.  On Charge 5 (against D1, D2 and D4), concerning the premises of 7A, No. 295 Prince Edward Road West, Kowloon Tong. The owner left the premises at around 3:00 p.m. on 14 February 2019.  At around 3:10 p.m., police were patrolling and looking for a black 7-seater vehicle bearing registration number PW5765, but they discovered another vehicle with registration number ST4762, suspecting that ST 4762 was PW5765.

13.  Later on, the 2nd and the 4th Defendant boarded that vehicle.  At around 4:30 p.m., the premises’ owner returned and found that the main door and the door lock had been prized open.  Upon search, the safe containing some cash, watches, jewelleries, personal document, which had a total value of about HK$4.1 million and some miscellaneous items had gone missing. 

14.  CCTV captured that the 4th Defendant had pressed the doorbell of that flat and also captured that ST4762 parked at a rear lane next to the building.  The 2nd and 4th Defendant alighted from the vehicle and returned to the vehicle about 20 minutes later, the 2nd Defendant was holding a large object wrapped in a blanket. 

Arrest and Caution

15.  On 15 February 2019, vehicle PW5765 left the car park of Sun Kong Hotel, it made a quick left turn and accidently rammed into a police car.  Eventually, this vehicle PW5765 lost control.  The 2nd Defendant came out of the vehicle and then later on, the 1st and the 3rd Defendant also ran out and they were intercepted eventually.  Upon search, some watches, rings and bracelets, some cash coupon and 1 ring concerning this case had been found. 

16.  The 1st Defendant, upon caution, admitted that the spoon found in his premises was given to him by his friend and he knew that spoon was a stolen item. 

17.  On 14 February 2019, his friends Ah Chung and Ah Fai invited him to make money by committing burglary.  He then accepted their invitation to drive them to Prince Edward Road West, and then later on his friend returned to the vehicle and one of them was carrying a safe wrapped in a blanket.  His friend also gave him a watch as reward. 

18.  On 15 February 2019, he met his friends who asked him to pass the stolen watches and jewelleries to someone in Sun Kong Hotel.  And then when he drove and left, they were intercepted.  He felt scared so he lost control of the vehicle. 

19.  The watch found on him was a stolen property, and the watches and jewelleries recovered at the scene inside the 7-seater vehicle were the stolen property from the safe. 

20.  The 2nd Defendant, under caution, admitted that someone called him and asked him to meet at the hotel, and there he met a person who gave him a Cartier ring and a bracelet and asked him to sell.  He believed that the ring was a stolen property.

21.  The 3rd Defendant, when arrested, was wearing a black T-shirt bearing a distinctive logo at the chest. 

22.  The 4th Defendant, under caution, admitted that he was involved in this incident on 14 February 2019 and he agreed to commit burglary with a friend.  On that day, they entered the building subsequently, that concerned the premises building of Flat 7A.  They took a lift to the 8th floor and then walked to the 7th floor.  They found an unattended flat, his friend broke the door lock and he acted as a lookout.  His friend entered the flat and came out with a backpack and an item wrapped in a blanket. 

23.  The vehicle then took them to Tin Shui Wai. Then he realized the item wrapped in the blanket was a safe.  He took away some money in the red pockets which were about HK$3,000, and left the scene. 

24.  Some mobile phones were seized from the Defendants and it was found that the 4th Defendant sent a voice message to the 1st Defendant on 15 February 2019 about the sharing of proceeds among them and persons named Fei Tung and Ah Fei.  The 2nd Defendant sent two photographs of Cartier and Hermes bracelets.  And there were also 17 deleted photos of jewelleries and watches recovered from one of the 4th Defendant’s mobile phones.

25.  The 4th Defendant admitted, together with two other persons, having entered Flat 48G as trespassers, stole things therein (Charge 1).  The 1st and 3rd Defendants admitted, together with another person, having entered Flat 32H as trespassers, stole things therein (Charge 3).  The 1st and 4th Defendants admitted, together with another person, having entered Flat 15B as trespassers, stole things therein (Charge 4).  And lastly, the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants admitted, having entered Flat 7A as trespassers and stole things therein (Charge 5). 

26.  The 1st Defendant, aged 42, has 6 previous criminal convictions including the offence of burglary in 2016.  Mr So for the 1st Defendant submitted that the 1st Defendant was a construction worker earning about HK$20,000 per month.  Mr So further submitted that the 1st Defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity and some stolen properties were also recovered. 

27.  The 2nd Defendant, aged 29, has 5 previous criminal convictions including 2 similar offences of burglary in 2016.  Mr Tam submitted that the 2nd Defendant was a casual decoration worker earning about HK$20,000 per month.  Mr Tam further submitted that the 2nd Defendant is now deeply remorseful and he committed the offence due to financial difficulties. 

28.  The 3rd Defendant, aged 28, has 11 previous criminal convictions including 3 offences of theft committed in 2007. Mr Davies submitted that the 3rd Defendant was a slope maintenance worker earning about HK$700 per day.  Mr Davies further submitted that while committing the offence, the residents were not at home, properties stolen were not substantially large and there was no threat to the safety of the occupants therein. 

29.  The 4th Defendant, aged 48, has 22 previous criminal convictions including 5 similar convictions of burglary where he was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment in 2017 for the offence of burglary.  Mr Tze submitted that the 4th Defendant was suffering from a range of disease including lung disease where he was hospitalized for about 17 days in June this year.  The 4th Defendant also submitted a letter, stating that he was deeply sorry for the victims and he committed the offence because of financial difficulties as well. 

30.  Burglary is a serious offence.  The Court of Appeal has in R v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988 stated that for burglary involving domestic premises, 3 years’ imprisonment shall be adopted as the starting point. 

31.  However, there are clearly aggravating factors in this case for all the charges, including that multiple Defendants were involved, the plan was sophisticated where even private vehicle was involved and substantial properties were stolen, and then all Defendants also had same or similar previous criminal convictions. 

32.  So all in all, I consider that the appropriate starting point for each burglary charge offence shall be 3½ years’ imprisonment, which shall be reduced to 28 months upon guilty plea (see the case of HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007 and HKSAR v Lai Fu Hing CACC 388/2013 for aggravating factors).

33.  And lastly, upon consideration of the totality principle, for the 1st and 4th Defendants, a total of 42 months’ imprisonment shall be imposed for the 3 charges of burglary. 

34.  So the overall sentences are as follows:

The 1st Defendant,

the 3rd, 4th and 5th charges, each 28 months’ imprisonment,

the 4th and 5th charges, 7 months of which be made consecutive to the 3rd charge, making a total of 42 months’ imprisonment (28+7+7).

The 2nd Defendant, the 5th charge, 28 months’ imprisonment.

The 3rd Defendant, the 3rd charge, 28 months’ imprisonment.

The 4th Defendant,

the 1st, 4th and 5th charges, each 28 months’ imprisonment,

the 4th and the 5th charge, 7 months of which be made consecutive to the 1st charge, making a total of 42 months’ imprisonment (28+7+7).

35.  For all the charges,

The 1st Defendant, 42 months’ imprisonment;

The 2nd Defendant, 28 months’ imprisonment;

The 3rd Defendant, 28 months’ imprisonment; and

The 4th Defendant, 42 months’ imprisonment.