HKSAR v. NGAI KAI LEONG

DCCC 577/2020

[2021] HKDC 1014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 577 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant faces 8 charges of "Burglary". He pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 3 and 8. I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charges 4 to 7 in the court file; not to be proceeded against the defendant without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

Charges 1 to 3

2.  The offence location was a residential unit situated at 4^th Floor, No.75 Ho Pui Street, Tsuen Wan ("the Flat"), which was partitioned into a number of rooms.  The Flat had a metal gate which was usually closed but not locked. All the rooms had locks on their wooden doors.  Rooms 1, 7 and 8 of the Flat were burgled in the afternoon on 8 April 2019. 

3.  Madam Chen, resident of Room 1, confirmed that the door latch was damaged.  Cash in the sum of $15,000, 1 gold wrist chain (valued at $10,000)  and 2 gold rings (valued at $4,000)  were missing from a cabinet drawer.  This is Charge 1.

4.  Madam R, resident of Room 7, confirmed that the door latch was damaged.  Cash in the sum of 300 Thai Baht and 30 Renminbi were missing from her handbag.  This is Charge 2.

5.  Mr. Yung, resident of Room 8, confirmed that the door latch was damaged.  Cash in the sum of 2,000 Renminbi and US$80 were missing from his wallet placed inside a cabinet.  Cash in the sum of HK$400 and his HKSAR passport were missing from the drawer of another cabinet.  This is Charge 3.

6.  IP camera footage of Room 8 captured the defendant entering the room around 1:53 p.m. on 8 April 2019.  He took off his socks and wore them on his hands to ransack the room. He took some money from a wallet; and some red packets and a passport from a cabinet.  He then put those items in his trouser pocket.  He left Room 8 in about 5 minutes.

Charge 8

7.  The offence location was a sporting goods store situated at 7^th Floor, Oriental House, Nos.24-26 Argyle Street, Mongkok ("the Shop").

8.  The Shop was found burgled around 8:00 a.m. on 4 January 2020.  Its glass door was broken and the Shop was ransacked.  The Police recovered 51 football shirts (valued at $14,112), 12 pairs of football socks (valued at $1,188)  and 1 box of LEGO (valued at $2,397)  in the vicinity of the Shop.  The owner of the Shop confirmed that 130 football shirts (valued at $150,000)  and 10 boxes of LEGO (valued at $20,000)  were missing.  The repair costs of the glass door were about $50,000.

Arrest and admissions

9.  The defendant was arrested at Tung Choi Street near Soy Street in the late afternoon on 21 March 2020.  Under caution for Charge 8, he admitted that he broke into the Shop and saw some football shirts and toys which appeared to be of value, so he stole them.

10.  In his video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted that he committed the offences in Charges 1 to 3.  He confirmed that he was the person captured by the CCTV footage of Room 8 of the Flat.  Regarding Charge 8, the defendant admitted that he burgled the Shop together with someone named Ah Wai.  He confirmed that he and Ah Wai were captured by the CCTV footage of 8^th Floor, Oriental House.  The defendant claimed that he could not resell the football shirts so he gave them away to his friends.  He sold the LEGO toys for a few thousand dollars.

Mitigation & Sentence

11. The defendant is 46. He has 15 conviction records, which included 5 "Theft" offences and 3 "Burglary" offences. Defence counsel Ms. Yap informed me that the defendant is divorced. He resides with his mother and daughter (aged 12). Prior to his arrest in March 2020, the defendant was unemployed. He was a transportation worker earning $18,000 per month before the social events in 2019.

12. In mitigation, Ms. Yap submitted that the defendant is the sole breadwinner of his family. Because of the social events in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020, his work hours were dramatically reduced, creating tremendous financial burden on him. He therefore foolishly committed the present offences.

13. The normal starting point for domestic burglary and non-domestic burglary is 3 years' and 2.5 years' imprisonment respectively. The defendant is no stranger to "Burglary" and "Theft" offences, which is an aggravating factor. Committing 3 burglaries within 1 day (i.e. Charges 1 to 3)  is also an aggravating factor[1]. In Charge 8, the value of the stolen properties was over $180,000, whereas only about $18,000 worth of goods were recovered. The defendant admitted that he burgled the Shop with another person.

14. For Charges 1 to 3, I adopt a starting point of 42 months' imprisonment each. With the timely guilty pleas, the sentence is reduced to 28 months each. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 28 months' imprisonment each for Charges 1 to 3.

15. For Charge 8, I adopt a starting point of 36 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment for this charge.

16. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 54 months just and appropriate for all 4 charges. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 36 months. Hence, I order the sentences to run in the following manner :-

(i)  Charges 1 to 3 concurrent; and

(ii)  8 months in Charge 8 consecutive to Charges 1 to 3.