HKSAR v. MOK KWOK HUNG

DCCC 1090/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1090 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.  The particulars of the offence are that on 18 September 2012, the defendant entered as a trespasser a restaurant, MATCHTOO, in Langham Place, Argyle Street, Mong Kok, and he stole from within the restaurant HK$10,890.

3.  The facts of this case are very straightforward.

4.  This restaurant closed at about 11 pm every night.  The defendant was a deputy manager of this restaurant and had been employed there since March 2012.

5.  Just after midnight on 18 September, the restaurant was locked up and secured.  That included cash of HK$10,890 locked in a drawer.

6.  The next day when staff returned to the restaurant, they discovered that locked drawer had been prised open and that amount of cash stolen.

7.  A CCTV recording obtained from the restaurant captured the defendant entering the restaurant at about 7.15 am and leaving the said restaurant a few minutes later.

8.  When the police arrested the defendant, he made a full admission.  He admitted that he did enter the restaurant at that particular time.  He prised the locked drawer and stole the cash from within.  He committed the offence out of greed and had sent the money to Mainland China.

9.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, as I have said, and that is his best mitigation.

10.  The defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has previous convictions involving dishonesty and one similar conviction in 2005.  The defendant’s last conviction was in November 2011, when he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for a theft offence.

11.  I have heard mitigation today and an explanation as to why he returned to the restaurant at about 7 am. 

12.  He had been drinking all night and was, in fact, returning to obtain some documents he needed to apply for a loan from a finance company. 

13.  Once he had entered the restaurant and opened that particular drawer, he realised the cash was ready at hand.  Under the influence of alcohol and out of a moment of greed, he took the money and left.  

14.  He knew what he was doing at that time but he also now realises how stupid his actions were when, as an employee, he knew there were CCTV cameras within the restaurant.

15.  I have been given details of the defendant’s background and I know he is 36 years old and divorced, but has the care and custody of a 15-year-old son.  His son is now presently being cared for by his parents.  They all live under the same roof.  The defendant has not remarried but has a girlfriend in Mainland China. 

16.  In fact, until the day of the offence, he had steady employment and this offence was, I accept, committed out of a momentary lapse of judgment and greed.

17.  I have been referred to several authorities by defence counsel and, as quite rightly pointed out, the normal starting point for a burglary of a non-domestic premises would be 2½ years’ imprisonment in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

18.  I see no reason to depart from this starting point.  I will take this starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment.  However, as he has pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a discount of one-third.  That would be a discount of 10 months. Therefore, for this offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months.