HKSAR v. WONG PAK KI

DCCC306/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 306 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   Wong Pak-ki, you have been convicted on your own pleas of four counts of burglary.  The first offence was committed on 29 July last year.  The other three occurred five days later on 3 August.

2.   Each offence involved you entering the office of a company in the late afternoon.  In each case your targets were printer cartridges.  The first offence occurred at the office of Fortis Bank at 3 Exchange Square.  There you stole 10 boxes of printer cartridges worth $14,780.  You have admitted you sold those cartridges in Wan Chai.

3.   The remaining three charges relate to burglaries at three offices in Two Pacific Place.  The burglary that is the subject of Charge 2 occurred at the office of the Intel Company.  A member of the staff saw you walking around the office, and later looking inside an open cabinet.  After he had questioned you about what you were doing there, it appears you must have left without stealing anything.  When you were questioned by the police about this burglary, initially you claimed that you had intended to steal soft drinks and paper from Intel, but later you admitted that you had wanted to steal printer cartridges.

4.   You also admitted entering two other offices at Two Pacific Place, those of Calyon Investment Company and Nitixis Investment Bank the same afternoon.  You stole three boxes of printer cartridges from Calyon worth $2,756 and five boxes from Nitixis Investment Bank worth $7,358.  Those particular cartridges were later recovered by the police.

5.   As you will have been informed by Mr Wong, the normal starting point for burglary in commercial premises is a sentence of 2½ years' imprisonment.  Mr Wong has suggested to me that this is a case where the court might consider a course other than immediate imprisonment.  In particular, he urges this court to consider the option of making a community service order. 

6.   He has drawn to my attention that you are a man of 32, with no previous convictions, and that hitherto you had led an honest and industrious life.  He submitted to me letters from your current employer, the principal of the college you formerly attended, your aunt, the Reverend Peter Leung, and from the community service centre where you have performed voluntary work since your arrest.  Mr Wong has also informed me of your father’s stroke and your family and personal circumstances.  He has also submitted to me a medical report from Dr Silvia Chan who is of the view that you have been suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder in the past three years.

7.   All these matters I have carefully considered.  While they are matters that the court can take into account in determining the appropriate length of sentence in your case, they do not persuade me that this is a case where a sentence of imprisonment should not be passed. 

8.   This was not one burglary committed on impulse on a particular occasion, but four burglaries, each targeting the same type of goods.  It was the type of goods that had a significant value and that you were in a position to dispose of.  This was not, therefore, a case of somebody stealing goods simply out of obsession or compulsion without having any rational basis for doing so.  You were well aware of the dishonesty of what you were doing, and on occasions when you were approached by staff of the companies involved you gave a dishonest explanation as to why you were there.

9.   As you admitted to the principal of your former college, you committed these offences out of greed.  I do, however, accept that these offences were out of character and that you are genuinely remorseful for what you have done.

10.   The starting point I am adopting on each charge  is 2½ years' imprisonment, but I am reflecting the overall criminality of these offences by adopting an overall starting point of 42 months' imprisonment on all charges.  Your previous good character, your remorse and your pleas of guilty entitle you to the usual discount of one-third.  That would result in a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment on each charge and an overall sentence of 28 months' imprisonment.

11.   I am, however, prepared to recognise further mitigating circumstances in this case - and in particular the fact that you have made restitution to the Fortis Bank, the victim of Count 1, the only victim whose goods were not recovered, by giving you a further discount of 4 months' imprisonment.

12.   I have reflected that additional discount by deducting 2 months from the sentence on Count 1 and making only 2 months of the sentences on the other counts run consecutively to the sentences on the 1st count. 

13.   The sentences I am passing then are as follows: on Count 1, 18 months' imprisonment; on Count 2, 20 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with Count 1; on Count 3; 20 months' imprisonment, 2 months of which are to run consecutively to the sentences on the first two charges; and Count 4, 20 months' imprisonment, 2 months of which are to run consecutive to the sentences on the other charges, Charges 1, 2 and 3.

14.   The overall sentence is therefore one of 2 years' imprisonment.