HKSAR v. LI CHUN MAN

DCCC 1049/2024

[2025] HKDC 1028

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1049 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant is charged with three counts of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)  (b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance. He pleaded guilty to all three charges and admitted the summary of facts. Accordingly, the defendant was convicted of Charges 1 to 3.

Summary of Facts

2.  At the material times, the defendant was employed as a workman at a hotel named Hotel Ease . Tsuen Wan which was located at 15-19 Chun Pin Street, Kwai Chung, New Territories (“the Hotel”).  On the 1/F of the Hotel there was a management office (“the Management Office”)  and inside there was a manager room (“the Manager Room”).  The doors to the Management Office and the Manager Room were each secured with a digital lock which could be unlocked with a keycard or a passcode.  There was a digital safe (“the Safe”)  inside the Manager Room which could be opened with a master key or a passcode.

3.  At the material times, only the manager of the Hotel (“the Manager”)  had the keycards to the Management Office and the Manager Room and only he knew the passcode of the Safe.

4.  The account clerk of the Hotel would keep some cash which belonged to the Hotel inside a set of locked drawers at his desk in the Management Office.  On 19 February 2024, it was discovered that cash in the sum of HK$5,500 in the said drawers went missing. On 20 February 2024, it was discovered that another sum of cash HK$13,500 went missing.  The account clerk then reported the matter to the Manager.

5.  After the above incidents, the Manager decided that cash kept in the Management Office would be placed inside the Safe for safekeeping.  However, on 21 February 2024, it was again discovered that a total of HK$51,000 of cash had gone missing from the Safe.  This time the Manager decided to report the matter to the Police.

6.  On 26 February 2024, the management of the Hotel had a meeting with the defendant.  During the meeting, the defendant admitted that he had stolen twice from the Hotel and had taken some cash of about HK$30,000 to HK$40,000 from a drawer inside the Management Office.

7.  On 13 March 2024, the defendant was arrested by the Police at his residence.  Under caution, the defendant said he lost money from gambling and therefore stole some money from the drawers.  He further admitted he used a key to open the Safe and stole HK$51,000 from it.

8.  Later a video-recorded interview was conducted.  Under caution, the defendant made the following statements:

(a)  He had stolen money from a drawer inside the Management Office twice. Each time he cut off the electricity supply from the electric meter room to avoid being captured by the CCTV camera;

(b)  He knew the passcode of the digital lock on the door of the Management Office because he had seen it written somewhere in the Hotel; and

(c)  On the third occasion when he intended to steal from the Management Office, he found that there was no money in the drawers. He then lied to the staff of the Hotel to borrow a master key and used it to open the Safe. He took away some cash in the sum of a few thousand dollars from the Safe.

9.  At all material times, the defendant was not authorized to enter the Management Office or the Manager Room unless there was an order for maintenance services there.  It was confirmed that on the three occasions that the defendant entered the Management Office or the Manager Room as mentioned above, there was no order for maintenance services to authorize the defendant to enter the said premises.

10.  The defendant now admits:

(a)  On a date between 15 to 19 February 2024, he entered as a trespasser part of a building known as the Management Office of the Hotel and stole cash of HK$5,000 (Charge 1);

(b)  On or about 20 February 2024, he entered as a trespasser part of a building known as the Management Office of the Hotel and stole cash of HK$13,500 (Charge 2); and

(c)  On or about 21 February 2024, he entered as a trespasser part of a building known as the Management Office of the Hotel and stole cash of HK$51,000 (Charge 3).

Mitigation

11.  The defendant is 46 years old and divorced.  He received education up to secondary 3 level. Before his arrest, the defendant worked as a technician at the hotel in question for about 5 years and the monthly salary was about HK$20,000.

12.  The defendant has a troubled past and has quite a long list of criminal records.  Between the years of 1996 and 2016, he had a total of 26 conviction records in which 10 were related to dangerous drugs and the rest were all convictions of theft.

13.  In mitigation, Defence submitted that the defendant committed the present offences because he was heavily indebted due to excessive gambling.  He committed these offences out of desperation to repay the debts.  Defence submitted, despite his long list of criminal records, the defendant managed to stay out of trouble for about 8 years.  He is very remorseful now and promises not to gamble again.  To conclude, Defence urged the court to take a lenient view on the defendant and to impose a lenient sentence.

Sentencing Consideration

14.  The Court of Appeal had set down clear guidelines in sentencing cases of burglary.  For burglary of commercial premises, the appropriate starting point should be 2.5 years’ imprisonment ie 30 months’ imprisonment: R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80.

15.  In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007, Yeung JA set out the following aggravating features:

“The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as (1)  the offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; (2)  the offence is committed by two or more people; (3)  the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4)  the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5)  the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of a similar nature, and (6)  the offender commits multiple offences.”

16.  There are indeed some aggravating features in this case.  Firstly, this is clearly a breach of trust case where the defendant burgled the premises of his employer.  Secondly, the defendant committed multiple offences within a short period of time. Thirdly, the defendant has a poor criminal record in which he has 17 previous convictions related to dishonesty.

17.  Considered all the circumstances of the case, personal background of the defendant, his criminal records and the mitigation put forward, I adopt 33 months as the starting point for Charges 1 to 3.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to full one-third discount.  Therefore, for each charge, the defendant is sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.

18.  Lastly, the court has to consider the totality of the sentence.  Considered the fact that all three charges were committed in the same premises and within a short period of time, I order 4 months’ imprisonment of each of Charges 2 and 3 to be served consecutively with the sentence of Charge 1.  As a result, the total sentence is 30 months’ imprisonment.