|
DCCC 576/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 576 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Wei Xiangsi (D1) |
|
| |
Wei Jukang (D2) |
|
----------------------
| Date: |
14 August 2014 at 11.02 am |
| Present: |
Ms Janice Cheuk, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Wong Yin-yee, of Eli K K Tsui & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for both defendants |
| Offence: |
(1) to (3) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendants pleaded guilty to three joint charges of burglary with intent.
2. The burglaries were all committed on the same evening at three 3-storey village houses situated in Savanna Garden on Tai Po Road, Tai Po, in the New Territories. This is a luxury development. The houses were No 12A, 15 and 17.
3. Houses 12A and 15 were vacant pending sale while House 17 was occupied. The roof of House 17 had glass barriers and brick walls which covered a glass canopy and there was a glass house on the roof.
4. At about 8 pm on 9 April, PW4, a domestic helper who was living at House 17 heard a sound of someone forcing the glass door on the roof of the house. A domestic helper in the house next door saw a man jumping from the roof of her house to the roof of another house.
5. The police were called and they arrived about 20 minutes later. They set up an observation post on the roof of House No 14.
6. They spotted D1 and D2 running from House 12A and climbing over the fence in the backyard to flee along the hillside towards Tai Po Road. They were arrested a short time later at the hillside near a bus-stop adjacent to Savanna Garden.
7. D1 was found to be holding a screwdriver and a pocket torch whereas D2 was found in possession of a pocket torch and a metal bracelet.
8. Under caution, they admitted the offence to the police officers. They said that they arrived in Hong Kong from Lowu the day before. They said they had no money to spend and hence they planned to take the money from the houses.
9. In respect of House No 12A, it was found that the door from the backyard leading to the living room and the door at the balcony of the master room were opened. Signs of ransacking were found in the house and the window in the toilet on the 3rd floor had been prised open.
10. In respect of House 15, the garden window was prised open and the glass door leading to the house from the backyard was broken.
11. In respect of House 17, the lock of the glass door on the roof was prised open.
12. I am told that at the time of the arrest, D1 had no money in his possession, but D2 was in possession of 1,200 Renminbi and HK$650.
13. Both the defendants are mainlanders and there are no previous convictions recorded against them in Hong Kong. At the time of the offences, they were 17 and 20 respectively.
14. I am told in the mainland they were educated to Secondary 3 level. They were unemployed and both lived with their parents.
15. In mitigation, it was urged upon the court that the defendants had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and they were relatively young with clear records in Hong Kong. No property had been taken, nobody was injured and no threats had been made to anybody.
16. I was told that when D1 came to Hong Kong, he lost his wallet and sought to enlist the assistance of D2 in getting some money. It was in those circumstances they decided to commit the burglaries.
17. I am told that D1 had been given some money by his mother before leaving the mainland for the purpose of purchasing gifts in Hong Kong.
18. I am told that both the defendants are remorseful and promise not to re-offend.
19. These offences are serious; they are domestic burglaries. The defendants were acting in concert and they arrived from the mainland the day before. Both were in possession of torches; one had a screwdriver, the other had a metal bracelet.
20. The houses were part of a luxury development in the Tai Po area of the New Territories. I was sure that they targeted these premises.
21. The usual sentence for offences of this kind without aggravating features is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. There are aggravating features in this case, but I take into account the relative youth of both defendants. I also take into account that no property was in fact taken and nobody was injured.
22. I therefore take the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that to 2 years to reflect their guilty pleas.
23. There were three burglaries and they were part of a series of burglaries. I have decided that in each case the sentence of 3 months on Charges 2 and 3 should run consecutive to the previous charges. A total of sentence will therefore be one of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
|