HKSAR v. TSEN PING KEI

DCCC 652/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 652 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant, Tsen Ping-kei, pleaded guilty before me to an offence of burglary.

2.  The defendant burgled a roast meat store in Tai Po on 7 June 2015.  The defendant committed the offence at 12.32 am on 7 June 2015.  In fact, the defendant was an ex‑employee of the shop. He had worked at the shop for one month in May, 2015.  He was given the keys of the shop when he was an employee, but he did not return the keys to the shop after he quit.

3.  At the material time of the offence, the shop was closed for business.  The defendant used the keys he had to open the roller shutter of its door and entered the shop.  He used a hard object to prise open the drawer of the shop and stole cash in the amount of $18,000.

4.  He went upstairs to switch off the CCTV cameras of the store as he was afraid of being recognised. 

5.  He used the money stolen to repay his debt owed to his creditor.

6.  He was arrested on 10 June 2015, and he admitted the offence under caution.

7.  The defendant is now 49 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong, he had received education up to Primary 3 level.

8.  He has two previous convictions.  In 1986 he was convicted of giving false information to a pawn broker.  In 1988 he was convicted of an offence of common assault.

9.  Mr Lee, in mitigation, told me that the defendant has a girlfriend for over 10 years.  They have a daughter now in Primary 5.  The daughter is living with the defendant’s girlfriend, whereas the defendant lives alone in Tuen Mun.  The defendant used to give $5,000 to $6,000 to his girlfriend for the support of his daughter and the living of the girlfriend.  Since the defendant became unemployed at the end of May this year, the defendant could not provide any financial assistance or support to his girlfriend and his daughter.

10.  The offence in question took place on 7 June 2015 when the defendant walked past the store in question.  The defendant was an ex‑employee of the store.   He quit at the end of May.  At the material time, the defendant was in serious financial difficulty.  The only idea that popped up in his mind at the time was that he should enter the shop and steal there.

11.  Mr Lee, in mitigation, told me the defendant was desperate at the time, now he is very remorseful.  Mr Lee submitted that there was no aggravating features in this case.  The offence was not a premeditated one.  The defendant was in financial difficulties because he was a heavy gambler.  After the defendant became unemployed in May this year he lost all his income, all his savings and moneys, in gambling.  To make things worse, he borrowed from a loan shark.

12.  A few days before the offence took place, the daughter of the defendant told him that she did very well in her school examination, and the defendant wanted to buy his daughter a new computer.  At the time of the offence, the defendant was confused and he did not think very carefully.  Now the defendant is determined to turn a new leaf upon release from prison.  He wants to marry his girlfriend, take good care of his daughter, and quit his gambling habit.

13.  The defendant burgled a non-domestic premises. He was in fact an ex-employee of the burgled premises.  He entered the premises with the use of the keys given to him by his ex‑employer.  Cash in the amount of $18,000 was stolen by the defendant.

14.  In my judgment, a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  The defendant is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.

15.  For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment.