HKSAR v. MUTUNGI DORCUS

DCCC 508/2024

[2025] HKDC 1514

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 508 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary[1].

Facts

2.  All the details of the case were set out in the Summary of Facts dated 9 May 2024 as admitted by the defendant. I am not going to repeat all the facts here.

3.  In gist, Ms Lau lived at the premises as set out in the Charge.  The window of her bedroom was connected to the rooftop of Block B of the building.  At all material times, there was no lock on the window of her bedroom and it could be opened outwards.

4.  At around 8:00 pm on 21 January 2024, Ms Lau heard noises coming out from her bedroom.  Then she saw someone entering the rooftop of Block B through the window of her bedroom.  Upon checking, the items particularized in the Charge were found missing.  The estimated total value of the loss is around $22,000.

5.  CCTV footages of Block B captured the defendant entering Ms Lau’s bedroom through the window and subsequently left the bedroom with a small bag.

6.  The defendant was later arrested. In subsequent record of interview, the defendant admitted going to Ms Lau’s premises. 

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is aged 48 and was born in Uganda.  She came to Hong Kong in 2009 as an asylum seeker and is a From 8 Recognizance holder.  She has 2 children living in Uganda.  She gave birth to a daughter in Hong Kong.  Prior to her arrest, she was receiving assistance from ISS.  She has 20 previous criminal conviction records, 13 of which relate to theft. 

8.  Although the defendant did not plead guilty at the first opportunity, she indicated her intended change of plea to guilty in July 2025.  This Court was invited to consider granting her a 25% discount on the sentence. 

9.  Further, although the defendant has a number of conviction records for theft, this will be her first conviction for burglary.  The present offence was not committed shortly after her release from prison for her last conviction.  She committed the present offence as she did not have money to pay for the rent after she was released from prison.  The defence invited this Court not to consider any enhancement of her sentence due to her records.

10.  The defence accepted that the fact that the defendant is a Form 8 Recognizance holder might be regarded as an aggravating factor.  This Court was invited to consider the lowest possible increase. 

11.  It was submitted that there were no other aggravating factors in this case[2]. The offence was not carefully planned or skillfully executed nor involved any heavy instrument.  It was committed by the defendant alone, not targeting at upmarket premises involving substantial properties.  Given the defendant’s status, she is unable to compensate the victim for the loss. 

12.  In view of the above, this Court was asked to impose a lenient sentence on the defendant. 

Sentence

13.  There is a well settled sentencing guideline for burglary of domestic premises.  According to the guideline, the starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 36 months’ imprisonment.

14.  As far as the defendant’s previous conviction records are concerned, she has 13 previous convictions for theft, which definitely relate to dishonesty.  Although this will be her first conviction for burglary, as both theft and burglary are dishonesty-related offences, I consider her previous convictions for theft is an aggravating factor justifying enhancement of the starting point.  For this factor, the starting point is enhanced by 3 months to 39 months’ imprisonment. 

15.  The defendant is a Form 8 Recognizance holder, which is an aggravating factor.  For this factor, the starting point is enhanced by 3 months to 42 months’ imprisonment.

16.  I accept apart from the above, there is no other aggravating factors.  Given the defendant indicated her change of plea before the first day of trial, I will grant her 25% discount on the sentence.  Apart from her guilty plea, there is no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction of sentence.  As a result of her plea, the sentence is reduced to 31 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment.

[1] contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210

[2] HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007