HKSAR v. KWOK HEUNG HUNG

DCCC 1159/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1159 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance. You have admitted that on 15 June 2012, you entered a flat at Ferry Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon and stole two handbags, three bank cards, one Octopus card, one iPhone, one wallet, one ID card, one kindergarten pick-up card, six keys and cash of $200, and the total value of the goods you stole was about $5,500.

2. This was a home occupied by a family, and at about 5.30 am on 15 June, one of the occupants, Mr Hui, was sleeping but then woke up as he saw a stranger at the door of his bedroom.  He chased after you, however, you fled and escaped via the kitchen window.  

3. Following investigation by the police, your fingerprints were found on the inner sidewall of the tiles in the kitchen.  Mr Hui the occupant of the flat stated he did not know you.

4. Your solicitor, Mr William Cheung, has mitigated on your behalf.  I have taken into account all that he has had to say.  You are aged 38 and came to Hong Kong in 2005.  You have two previous convictions of theft, both in 2012, in September and October respectively.

5. I am informed that for the past six-odd years, you had been working as a hawker in Jordan Road.  However, you have since become unemployed and due to your heavy financial responsibility to your mother and your estranged wife and daughter, you resorted to this burglary as you were in desperate need of money.

6. I am also informed that you are a drug addict and since your incarceration in Lai Chi Kok, you have been taking methadone.  Your solicitor, Mr Cheung, requested me on your behalf to call for a drug addiction treatment centre report as you wished to be rehabilitated for your drug dependency.  

7. However, there are very clear guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal that a burglary of domestic premises, the appropriate sentence is one of an immediate sentence of three imprisonment. In those circumstances, I do not consider any sentence of drug addiction treatment centre to be appropriate.

8. As Mr Cheung rightly points out, the appropriate starting point for domestic-premises burglary is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  In this case, there was an aggravating feature such that the starting point of 3 years should be increased.  That factor is that you had entered the victim’s premises in the early hours of the morning, a time when the house was occupied and when anyone would clearly have expected it to be occupied.  Furthermore, in this particular case, the occupant or the victim had in fact seen you and chased after you.  There was a confrontation as Mr Hui chased after you but you ran away. At the very least your presence in the flat would have come to a surprise and shock to Mr Hui.  In these circumstances, I consider an increase of 3 months for that aggravating factor to be appropriate.

9. Defendant had I convicted you after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment.  However, you have pleaded guilty.  I give you full credit for your plea of guilty, and that sentence shall be reduced to one of 26 months’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced.