HKSAR v. QU YUANGTAO

DCCC216/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 216 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary. The victim lived at a house in Bellevue Villa, Lam Ha Road, Fei Ngo Shan, Tseung Kwan O (“the House”). At about 7 pm on 29 February 2009, a security guard of Bellevue Villa found that the CCTV camera covering the House had been tampered with. Feeling suspicious, the security guard made a report to the police. When the police officers arrived at the scene, they found that the balcony door of the House was left ajar. Upon investigation, some prising marks were found at the balcony door of one of the bedrooms. When one of the police officers climbed up to the rooftop, he found the Defendant and an unknown man hiding in the gap between the wall and the air-conditioner. Upon seeing the police officer, the Defendant and the unknown man immediately jumped to the lower platform of the adjacent house and then onto the ground. Subsequently, the Defendant and the unknown man climbed over the security iron wire and fled towards the hillside. A rucksack containing some stolen properties and breaking tools was found at the rooftop.

2.  At around 9.40 pm on the same day, a police officer saw the Defendant acting furtively near Clearwater Bay Road. When the police officer asked the Defendant to stop, the Defendant fled at once. The police officer gave chase and finally intercepted the Defendant. The police officer found that the palms of the Defendant were injured. Suspecting that the Defendant was involved in the burglary of the House, the police officer arrested the Defendant.

3.  The victim positively identified two jade Phoenix statues, a piece of round amber, a magnifier, a wristwatch, a beamed chain, a piece of transparent jade, five keyrings with torches, a watch dial, a watchband, a LCD clock, a mobile phone, cash of HK$910 and cash of RMB320, all of which were recovered inside the rucksack, to be her properties.

4.  In the video-recorded interview conducted on 31 December 2009, the Defendant admitted that he came to Hong Kong on 27 December 2009. The Defendant admitted that he together with his friend had broken into a house in Fei Ngo Shan with breaking tools shortly before his arrest. He also admitted that he and his friend did not have much money and they wanted to steal some money inside the House.

5.  The Defendant is now 19 years old. He is a Mainland Chinese citizen and he has finished Form 2 secondary school education in Mainland China. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. According to the Defendant’s solicitor, the Defendant is single. His father is in poor health. His mother is a farmer who sells vegetables and is the breadwinner of the family. He also has an elder brother and a younger sister. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a driver earning about RMB2,000 per month. He came to Hong Kong by a two-way permit on 27 December for sightseeing purposes. According to the Defendant’s solicitor, the Defendant committed the offence out of economic reasons. Apart from the plea of guilty and also the clear record, the Defendant’s solicitor urges the court to consider that: (i)the Defendant did not bring any offensive weapons to the victim’s premises; (ii) all the stolen properties were recovered by the police; (iii) and there was no great economic loss caused to the victims.

6.  The Defendant is only 19 years old. It is an established principle that the requirements of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance are only directory and not mandatory. As burglary is a very serious offence and considering the background of the Defendant, I am of the view that immediate imprisonment is the only option available to the court, and so the court is not prepared to call for any report before sentence.

7.  According to established sentencing guideline, burglary of domestic premises would attract a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. The burglary occurred in the evening but was not late in the night. Although the Defendant committed the offence with another person, there was only one other person involved and so I am not prepared to increase the sentence by reason of the fact that the Defendant committed the offence with a group of burglars. Adopting the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment. This is the sentence I impose in the present case.