HKSAR v. LI LIANG

DCCC 215/2020

[2020] HKDC 529

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 215 OF 2020

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant was originally charged with 2 counts of burglary (Charges 1 and 3) with respective alternative count of criminal damage (Charges 2 and 4), contrary to section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. He pleaded guilty to Charges 2 and 4 but not guilty to Charges 1 and 3, and was accordingly convicted of Charges 2 and 4.

Summary of facts

2.  Mr Tsang (PW1) was the owner of Room B4, one of the rooms located at Flat B, 12^th floor, Cheong Tai Industrial Building, Nos 50-56 Fui Yiu Kwok Street, Tsuen Wan.

3.  At around 1845 hours on 30 November 2019, Mr Tsang returned to Room B4 for work and saw that the door of Room B3, adjacent to Room B4, was not closed properly.  Besides, he received notification from the CCTV camera installed on the door of Room B4.  Upon viewing the relevant CCTV footage, Mr Tsang saw a male (later identified as the defendant) had tried the door knob of all rooms and kicked open the door of Room B3 earlier on the same day.  The police was subsequently alerted.

4.  Shortly afterwards and upon the arrival of the police, the door of another room, ie Room B2, was also found unlocked.  The defendant was inside looking and walking around.  Upon arrest and under caution, the defendant stated the he was there to collect a debt but was not able to provide the name of the debtor and the amount of the debt.  He further said that he entered Flat B just by guessing the password and kicking the door.

5.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant, in the presence of a Putonghua interpreter, admitted, inter alia, that:

(1) he entered Rooms B2 and B3 by kicking the doors with a view to collecting a debt of HK$200,000 from a Miss Siu whom he met in Macau several months ago;

(2) the defendant met Miss Siu for 4 times and they became lovers;

(3) no written agreement had been made in respect of the alleged debt as he was minded to develop a long term relationship with that Miss Siu;

(4) in August 2019, the defendant had met Miss Siu on the ground floor of Cheong Tai Industrial Building where she revealed that she was working in Flat B on 12^th floor;

(5) on 30 November 2019, upon arriving at Flat B in question, the defendant entered the password of “111” which was once told by Miss Siu;

(6) he knocked the doors of the rooms and texted Miss Siu but got no reply;

(7) acting out impulse, he kicked the door of Rooms B2 and B3; and

(8) after entering the premises, he sat on the sofa and waited for Miss Siu.

6.  Upon examination, 2 palm prints of the defendant were found from the door of Room B2.  Upon checking, the owners of Room B2 and B3 (Mr Koo) confirmed that there was no loss of property in both rooms except the damaged door.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

7.  The defendant is 28 years old, single, a “Two-way” permit holder and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He worked as a Sales Executive in a fitness centre in China.  He was living with his mother in the mainland.  He has been remanded since 30 November 2019.

8.  In mitigation, counsel for the defendant put forward on his behalf a more or less the same story as he told the police after arrest during the video recorded interview.  In fact, the same was stated again in the defendant’s hand written mitigation letter submitted to the Court.  I accept that the defendant had actually no intention to steal or commit any offence while entering the premises at the material time.  He was just desperate to collect the debt from that Miss Siu but to no avail.  He committed the present offence out of impulse and stupidity as he regretted in his own letter.

9.  The defendant has expressed his willingness to compensate for the damage of the doors of both rooms.  I am told that the prosecution has accepted that the repairing cost for each door is about HK$1,000.

Consideration of sentence

10.  The maximum penalty for the present offence is 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment and there are no sentencing guidelines set out for the offence because the facts of each case can vary infinitely.  The seriousness of the present offences mainly rested with the purpose for the damage in question was to invade the private premises to which the defendant had no right at all.

11.  However, I consider that the value of the damaged property in the present case was not huge, which costing around HK$1,000 in respect of each door.

12.  Having considered all the circumstances, I consider a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for each charge.  The defendant’s timely plea warrants a full one-third discount, reducing the sentence to 6 months’ imprisonment.  Given the close proximity to each offence,  I order both terms to be served wholly concurrently.  The total sentence received by the defendant is therefore 6 months’ imprisonment.

Compensation

13.  In relation to the compensation, I also now make a compensation order of HK$1,000 to be paid to the respective owner of Rooms B2 and B3, via the Court, within 14 days from today.