HKSAR v. YEUNG KA KIT, JONATHAN

DCCC510/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 510 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary and was convicted accordingly. Charge 4 was ordered to be left on court file. Here are the reasons for sentence.

The prosecution case

2.  The burglary occurred in Ho Lap College in Wong Tai Sin.  The students were provided with lockers on different floors in the school.

Charge 1

3.  PW1 to PW4 were students of the school and so was PW5.  They placed their textbooks inside their respective lockers in the afternoon of 8 December 2009.  PW5 kept her textbooks in her locker in November.  They secured their lockers with padlocks.  On 9 December 2009, these five prosecution witnesses realised that their textbooks inside their lockers and the padlocks went missing.  Upon investigation a total of 15 books and three padlocks were stolen.  The value of these items was about 1,900‑odd.  The CCTV installed at the school captured that a Chinese male entered the school in the afternoon of 8 December 2009.  That male was wearing a pair of glasses, a grey long‑sleeved shirt, a black sweater vest, a pair of black trousers and black shoes.  The male was seen on the ground floor and also on the fourth floor of the school.  He was carrying some bags.  He was seen leaving the school with three bags.

Charge 2

4.  Two other students of the school, namely PW6 and PW7, kept their textbooks in their respective lockers which were locked with padlocks.  They found their textbooks and padlocks missing on 10 December 2009. The stolen property involved 14 books and two padlocks worth about 1,500-odd.  On 10 December, four of the stolen items belonging to PW6 were found inside the male toilet on the 3rd floor of the school.  One of the stolen items belonging to PW7, namely one yellow-coloured exercise book, was found on the defendant when the defendant was arrested on 15 December 2009.  The CCTV at the school captured that a male was seen inside the school in the afternoon of 9 December.  That male was wearing the same clothing as the one seen on 8 December.  The male left the school with two bags.

Charge 3

5.  The victims, PW8 and PW9, were also students of the school.  They kept their books in their lockers which were secured with padlocks.  On 14 December they found their textbooks and one padlock missing. The other padlock was broken.  They lost 10 books and one padlock worth about 1,300-odd.  A few days later, two stolen books belonging to PW9 were recovered inside the toilet of the school.  The CCTV captured that a male who was wearing the same clothing as the one seen on 8 and 9 December inside the school.  That male was seen on the third floor and the fourth floor of the school and left the school with two bags.

The arrest of the defendant

6.  On the afternoon of 15 December 2009, a staff of the school, PW11, saw the defendant approaching the rear gate of the school. At that time the defendant was carrying a black bag.  The defendant entered the school compound.  The police officers were alerted and eventually the defendant was intercepted when the defendant was walking towards Choi Hung Road.  Upon a search on the defendant the police found, inter alia, a pair of large bolt cutters of 14 inches long, two black bags and one exercise book belonging to PW7.  At that time the defendant was wearing the same clothing as the male captured by CCTV mentioned above.  The appearance of the defendant also looked like that male.  Under caution, the defendant made the following admissions:-

He went to the school about three times, including the occasion on 9 December, with a view of getting some unused books for a bookshop. He had gone to the other schools with the same purpose. He had a bolt cutter in order to prise open padlocks.

Mitigation

7.  Mr Richmond, defence counsel, tendered a written submission on mitigation.  The defendant is now 34 years old and was living with his parents in Hong Kong.  He is married and his wife lives in China.  The defendant graduated from the University of Hong Kong in 1998 with a degree of Bachelor of Arts.  The defendant had a few jobs.  He was a financial manager of a consultancy firm.  The offences that the defendant committed were prompted by financial difficulties that the defendant encountered.  The defendant was the main breadwinner of the family as his parents are unable to work.  The defendant’s father is suffering from some illnesses and depression.  His mother also requires medical attention.  It was submitted that the defendant is a filial son.  He chose not to disclose his financial burden to his parents and continued to contribute $2,000 to 3,000 to his family expenses per month.  He borrowed heavily from financial institutions and eventually from loan sharks. As expected, the defendant was unable to pay the loans and he got threatening letters or posters from the loan sharks.  Seven of these threatening letters or posters were tendered in court today. 

8.  In April 2009 the defendant was declared bankrupt.  He became more desperate and eventually started to commit crimes. He committed theft in his private tutee’s home in 2009 and was convicted of two counts of theft in October 2009.  The defendant was sentenced to perform 160 hours of community services.  At the time of his arrest, the defendant had completed all but 24 hours.

9.  The defendant is remorseful and has pleaded guilty to the offences today, though not at the earliest possible opportunity. He is ashamed of himself and the pressure his crime has brought to his parents.  The present offences were opportunistic and there were no aggravating factors.  It was submitted that on each occasion the value of the stolen property was less than $2,000.  Some of the stolen property was recovered. 

Sentence

10.  The defendant committed three burglaries of the same school within one week.  From the mitigation, I noticed that when the defendant was committing the present offences, he was still under the Community Service Order with 24 hours left to be completed.  Apparently the defendant did not treasure the golden opportunity to reform and rehabilitate himself, and he committed even more serious crime.  Given the academic achievements that the defendant had obtained, it is a pity and a shame that a university graduate ended up in this way.  The sadness and the sense of disappointment shown by his parents in the mitigation letter is totally understandable, especially when the defendant is the only son in the family.  Today, the defendant’s parents and his sister are present in court to show their support to which the defendant should be grateful.  This is a sad case.

11.  I accept that the value of the stolen property was not high, that the offences were committed in the afternoon and the school is of course a non-domestic premises.  I will not consider the defendant’s previous record for the present sentencing purpose.  However, it is an aggravating factor that the defendant was still under the CSO when he committed the offences and that he committed the offences repeatedly or nearly consecutively.  In fact the defendant was equipped with a large bolt cutter at the time he was arrested.  Had the 4th charge not been left on court file, the defendant would definitely face a much heavier sentence.

12.  Be that as it may, after considering the mitigation of the defendant and the circumstances of this case, I am prepared to treat the defendant leniently.  I do hope that the defendant will really make good use of his academic background to reform himself, to turn a new leaf and be a real filial son.

13.  The defendant’s guilty plea would entitle him to have one-third discount.  In fact the defendant is absolutely wise to do so otherwise he would have to face a much heavier sentence.  It is well-established that for non-domestic burglary, the starting point is 2½ years.  Taking all factors into consideration, I would adopt a global approach and treat the defendant with leniency.  I will adopt 2 years as the starting point for all three charges.  Hence I will sentence the defendant

to 16 months’ imprisonment, and all sentences are to be served concurrently.