HKSAR v. LI YIP KIN, KEN

DCCC 327/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 327 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Li, has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, committed respectively on 11 February 2017 and 14 February 2017 in the Pakpolee Commercial Centre in Mong Kok.

2.  The facts are simple.

3.  The first premises in respect of the 1st charge had been locked on midnight on 11 February 2017.  When it was unlocked the next morning, a number of items had been stolen from storage lockers which were prised open.  There were three tablet computers worth $1,500, a mobile phone worth $500, and a safe which at the time contained some $48,000.

4.  CCTV recording captured the defendant entering the location in question at about 5.53 am in the morning of 11 February and then putting various items into his bag.

5.  2nd charge relates to another room in the same premises on 13 February 2017.  Again, the door was locked in the evening of 13 February 2017.  On return the next day, signs of ransacking were found.  The stolen items were a laptop computer valued at $1,998, an iPad 2 worth $6,400, and cash of $1,000, and again the defendant was captured entering the room on a CCTV camera at about 5 am on 14 February.

6.  Defendant was intercepted and arrested on 16 February 2017.  He still had cash of some HK$20,000 and $200 of Euros on him. He was cautioned and admitted he committed the two offences in question.  He had not expected to be arrested quite so quickly.

7.  Again in the video recorded interview, he expanded a bit on the admissions he had already made.  He had sold the electronic items at Ap Liu Street.  He said that the money on him he had won in a card game.

8.  The case has proceeded on the basis that no stolen property was recovered, as paragraph 8.

9.  The defendant’s criminal record shows that he has a number of previous convictions for burglary and also generally offences of dishonesty. 

10.  His antecedent statement indicates that he is said to be a drug addict and that appears to be borne out by the fact a number of his first convictions were in 1997 for possession of a dangerous drug and, in fact, the last convictions in 2016, in August of that year, were also for possession of dangerous drug and also for the equipment for smoking it, where he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment.

11.  In between those times, the defendant has committed a number of offences of burglary and theft.  As far as burglary is concerned, his first conviction of burglary was in 2007 for a single offence, sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, and a further offence the same date, 27 February 2007.  In fact, on that occasion, three offences.  He was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, it would appear.

12.  In 2010, a further offence of burglary, where he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and in 2013, 29 August 2013, two offences of burglary and two offences of obtaining property by deception.  For the offences of burglary, he was sentenced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, and the same sentence for the offences of obtaining property by deception, but the offences of obtaining property by deception were to run consecutively to the extent of 14 months, so that would have been an overall sentence of some 14 months’ imprisonment.

13.  Since then, the defendant has committed some offences of theft and also possession of a dangerous drug.

14.  As far as his background is concerned, he is aged 37, educated up to Form 7, has worked as a driver with an income of about $10,000 per month.  He has family:  a father, mother and a brother.  He is a drug addict, said to be addicted to “Ice”.

15.  As far as mitigation is concerned, it is pointed out in mitigation these are non-domestic premises.  The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, so he is entitled to a full one-third discount from that, and it is said, as far as the two offences are concerned, they were committed close together and the court should take into account that when determining the overall total sentence for these offences.

16.  It is well established that the guideline sentence for a non-domestic premises burglary, the starting point for sentence will be 30 months’ imprisonment for a person of clear record who has pleaded not guilty.  That is to be reduced by one-third normally for a plea of guilty.

17.  There are bases on which that sentence can be adjusted upwards as a result of aggravating factors, such as careful planning and skilful execution; use of heavy equipment; multiple offenders; multiple offences; the fact the defendant is a professional burglar rather than an opportunist burglar; and the defendant has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of a similar nature.

18.  As far as this defendant is concerned, he clearly has previous convictions of a similar nature, which will aggravate the sentence against him, and he is a persistent burglar who shows elements of what I could describe as a professional approach, in that certainly in the first burglary, going after electronic items and also taking a safe away with a considerable amount of cash in it.

19.  Taking these factors into account, taking a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, adding the aggravating factors, in respect of each of these offences, I consider the overall starting point should be one of 39 months’ imprisonment.

20.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount from that.  That leads to a sentence on each charge of 26 months’ imprisonment.

21.  I must look at the overall totality:  two offences here, committed close together in the same premises.  What I shall do is order that 10 months of the 2nd charge be consecutively to the first, leading to an overall total sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment, which I consider is the appropriate overall sentence for this offence.