HKSAR v. HUANG JIAO XUAN

DCCC 646/2017
[2018] HKDC 93

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 646 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  Huang Jiao Xuan you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary of a shop in Mongkok, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.  In summary at the time of the burglary the shop was under renovation.  Wooden boards surrounded the shop with a wooden door secured with a chain and combination padlock.   Photographs of both the outside and inside of the shop have been submitted to the court. 

3.  On the evening of 7 May 2017 Mr Cheung, one of the decoration workers, secured the wooden door with the chain and padlock.  The next morning when returning to work Mr Cheung discovered four drills, valued at $9000, were missing. 

4.  CCTV showed you wandering outside the shop in the early hours of 8 May 2017; tampering with the padlock and entering the shop for a period of six minutes. 

5.  You were arrested on 23 May 2017.  Under caution and in a video recorded interview you admitted walking past the shop when you noticed the shop was under decoration and acting out of momentary greed you unlocked the padlock, entered the shop and stole the four drills which you sold the next day for $200. 

Mitigation

6.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Chan, including that at the time you were out of work and had no money and that you have elderly parents in Hong Kong to take care of.

7.  I take into account you have no previous convictions for burglary.  You cannot however be given credit for a clear record as you have convictions for possession of drugs, possession of obscene articles and theft.    

Starting point

8.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

9.  Lower starting points have been taken where premises are under renovation[2]. 

10.  The photographs show that the shop was not occupied during renovation.  Although you were captured on CCTV tampering with the padlock I am told the CCTV does not show how you were able to unlock the padlock.  The prosecution confirm that the padlock was not broken and no tools were used to gain entry.   Mr Chan says you noticed the padlock was old and tried to open the padlock.

11.  I am satisfied this was not an opportunistic burglary where you passed by an open door or vacant premises and stole food or items of little value[3].   Whilst the flat was not occupied the decoration workers had left valuable property in the shop.  The four drills were valued at $9000. 

12.  The property being under renovation I am satisfied that a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.