HKSAR v. TSANG CHONG YIP

DCCC 467/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 467 OF 2015

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

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

---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  The facts are that the defendant is an ex-employee of a bar in Peace Avenue, Mongkok.  He had worked there for about four years and lost his job in March 2015.  He knew that the bar was only open in the evenings.

3.  On the morning of 25 April, about a month after he lost his job, the defendant entered and burgled the premises.  The defendant would have known that it was locked up and nobody would be there in the morning.  He took a total of $4,500 cash.  When the burglary was discovered, PW1, the proprietor, viewed the CCTV footage of the bar and recognised the defendant.  The police arrested the defendant at his home address.  As an employee, the bar owner had his home address on his records.  After the defendant was arrested and under caution, he made a full and frank admission to the police.

4.  The defendant is 35 years old.  This is his first conviction.  He had a previous clear record.  He is married with a 2-and-a-half-year-old son.  I have been told when he worked at the bar, he was earning about HK$20,000 a month.  But after he lost his job, he could only find employment for three to four thousand dollars a month.  This decline in income caused his family problems.  His family - that included his mother - relied on the defendant’s income.  The defendant’s wife left the defendant and their son in March this year, the same month that he lost his job.

5.  Mr To on behalf of the defendant explained that the defendant was depressed at the time, worried about money and stupidly committed this offence.  The defendant is very remorseful.  His remorse is shown by his plea of guilty, his full co-operation with the police after his arrest and the additional fact that he has repaid the loss suffered to the victim before plea was taken, that being a sum of $4,500.  That does point to genuine remorse.

6.  Where a burglary of a non-domestic premise has taken place, a normal starting point would be 2 and a half years.  That is appropriate when there are no aggravating or mitigating factors that exist.  I see no aggravating factors here.  However, I am prepared to accept there are mitigating factors here, and those include the defendant’s previous clear record, his genuine remorse and the fact restitution has been made in a very timely manner.

7.  Defendant, please stand up.  Because of those mitigating factors, I will take a lower starting point than the norm.  I take a starting point of 21 months.  Because of your plea, you are entitled to a discount of one-third from that starting point.  After that discount is applied, I order you to serve a 14-month sentence.  You understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.