HKSAR v. MOK HON MAN

DCCC910/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 910 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendants, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences: D1, Charges 1 and 2, 7 to 11 inclusive, which are burglaries, and Charge 12; D2, to Charges 10, 11 and 13. Each burglary is contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The charges of resisting arrest, being Charges 12 and 13, are each contrary to section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

2.  The offences which you denied are ordered to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. 

3.  Brief facts are as follows.  Between September 2008 and May 2010, a series of office burglaries took place, each with a similar modus operandi.  The burglars entered offices during the lunch hour via doors left open or unlocked by staff who had gone out to lunch. 

Charges 10 and 11

4.  Ching Ya Fabric Limited has an office at Room 2118A on the 28th Floor of Cable TV Tower, 9 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan.  On 25 May of this year the staff left the office at about 1300 hours for lunch.  They returned at about 1420 hours to find the following property missing: two notebook computers, two memory sticks, one electronic dictionary and one digital mouse.  The total value of the goods missing was $9,600.  A report was made to the security department. 

5.  Chaif Holdings Limited has an office at Room 2812 on the 28th Floor.  The staff left for lunch between 1300 hours and 1400 hours, and upon return found the following property missing: two gold ornaments, a notebook computer, a PSP game player, a games disc, a pair of earphones.  Total value was $18,900. 

Charges 12 and 13

6.  Police went to Cable TV Tower on 25 May, at noon.  At about 1343 hours you were both seen on CCTV in the cargo lift.  D1, you had a white plastic bag, and D2 a rucksack.  You got out of the 1st floor and caught a passenger lift to the ground floor.  As you tried to leave the building police officers intercepted you.  After a violent struggle you were both subdued.  In your white plastic bag, D1, was found one of the gold ornaments stolen from the Chaif Holdings, and in the black rucksack of you, D2, the remainder of the property stolen from the office of Ching Ya Fabric and Chaif Holdings Limited.  Under caution both of you admitted committing burglaries on the 28th floor.

7.  Four police officers required medical treatment: one, abrasion to the right elbow; Sergeant 50757 a fractured bone in his right foot, fracture of rib, abrasion of right elbow and right knee; another sergeant had bruising and abrasions on both hands and right elbow; and a further officer had bruising and abrasions on both knees and left wrist. 

8.  Interviewed under caution, both of you admitted involvement in Charges 10 and 11.  In addition, you, D1, admitted that you had been involved in Charges 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. 

Charge 1

9.  Between 1245 hours and 1445 hours, on 1 September of 2008, two males entered the premises of Zoap Consulting Limited at 1117, 11th Floor, Nan Fung Commercial Centre, 19 Lam Lok Street, Ngau Tau Kok, and stolen three notebook computers, one handbag and a bundle of keys, valued at $15,000.

Charge 2

10.  Between 1310 hours and 1400 hours, on 3 September, 2009, two males entered the premises of Hong Kong Tax & Accountancy Consultants Limited at 2501, 25th Floor, Yen Sheng Centre, 64 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, and stole a notebook computer valued at $10,000. 

Charge 7

11.  At about 1330 hours, on 7 May 2010, two males entered Care Fusion Hong Kong Limited at 1605B, 16th Floor, Sino Plaza, 255-257 Gloucester Road, and stole four notebook computers valued at $33,000.

Charge 8

12.  At approximately 1310 hours, on 12 May, 2010, two males entered premises at China State Construction Limited at 29th Floor, China Overseas Building, 125-139 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, as trespassers, and stole therein a notebook computer valued at $15,580.

Charge 9

13.  Between 1315 hours and 1410 hours, on 13 May of this year, two males entered premises of AR Evans Capital Partners Limited, 1706, 17th Floor, Alexandra House, 16-20 Chater Road, Central, as trespassers, and stole therein two notebook computers valued at $11,360.

14.  D1, you admitted to 13 previous convictions on six occasions, eleven of which involve dishonesty, three being for burglary.  D2, you admitted to six previous convictions on four occasions, all being for burglary.  Mr Dunn, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted two sentencing authorities for my assistance: Secretary for Justice v Chan Tsz Lung, CAAR4/1998 and HKSAR v Chang Wai Kai(?), CAAR338/2007.  Both dealt with situations of multiple convictions for burglary.  So far as they are relevant to the particular circumstances of the present case, I took them into account whilst noting the differences.

15.  Miss Tsang, on behalf of you, D1, entered mitigation.  She told me that you, after an initial struggle with the police officers, had been entirely cooperative in making full admissions, and you have now pleaded guilty.  In respect of the burglaries, there had been no forced entry and no use of violence or intent to do so.  The total amount of the goods stolen by you amounted to $83,740, but you had received considerable less when selling them.

16.  Turning to your personal details, she told me you are 45 years of age, divorced, and residing with your mother.  At the time of arrest you had been unemployed, but previously had worked in construction, earning almost $5,000 per month.  You had committed the burglaries to supplement your wages.  Charges 10, 11 and 12 all related to the same occasion, being 25 May of this year.  Charge 12 resulted from an attempt by you to escape.  The offences all occurred between September of 2008 and May of 2010. 

17.  In respect of Charges 10 and 11, nothing had in fact been lost as the goods taken had all been recovered.  Miss Tsang submitted there were substantial differences between the present offences and the sentencing provided by the prosecution.

18.  Miss Chow then entered mitigation on behalf of you, D2.  She told me that you are 40 years of age and had been in financial difficulties because of a debt occasioned by a failed business venture in China from 1990.  You owed in excess of a $100,000 to finance companies.  You had a clear record until you were 28 years of age. You are now unemployed.  You had been released from prison in 2006 and have been unable to find work. 

19.  In 2007 your wife left you, and you had to care for a teenage daughter.  Your mother is aged and in poor health.  Miss Chow sought leniency on your behalf, and she too asked me to distinguish the sentencing authorities.  Quite rightly, she pointed out the fact that you pleaded guilty to Charges 10, 11 and 13, that all goods have been recovered in respect of Charges 10 and 11.  Charge 13 occurred when you tried to escape.  You plea of guilty was stressed.

20.  I turn now to the sentences.  D1, you have pleaded guilty to seven offences of burglary and one offence of resisting arrest; D2, to two offences of burglary and one of resisting arrest.  I note in respect of Charges 10 and 11 all goods were recovered, but that was purely fortuitous.  Each of you has a substantial criminal record, especially for burglary. 

21.  In mitigation, I note there was no forced entry, nor do the facts suggest any ransacking of any of the premises.  On the facts, no one was put in fear by your trespassing. D1, your offences are more numerous and involve loss to the owners, and are therefore more serious.  In each case you took advantage of the situation whereby premises were left unattended and insecure as staff went out for their lunch.

22.  In all the circumstances the following sentences will be imposed.  I am treating each as a series of offences as a course of conduct, especially for you, D1.  I intend to take the standard tariff.  D1, on Charges 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 I take on each a starting point of 13 months, reduced to 20 months, for your plea of guilty. 

23.  To give effect to the principle of totality, the sentences will be served in the following way. The 20 months on Charge 2 will be served 16 months consecutively with the 20 months on Charge 1.  Four months will be concurrent.  The 20 months in respect of each of the other offences will be concurrent with each other and concurrent to that sentence of 36 months. 

24.  In respect of Charge 12, I note that there was injury, serious injury to Detective Sergeant 50757. As a result of your resistance to the lawful arrest, he suffered a broken bone in his foot, fractured rib and other injuries.  Whilst I accept that was not your intention, nonetheless you must bear the consequences. 

25.  In that case I take a starting point of 4½ months, reduced to 3.  You will go to prison for 3 months.  That will be consecutive to the 36 months imposed for the burglaries.  That is a total of 39 months.

26.  D2, you face two offences of burglary in Charges 10 and 11.  On each I take a starting point of 30 months, reduced to 20 months to give you credit for your plea of guilty. Also applying the principle of totality, the sentences will be served in the following way.  The 20 months on Charge 11 will be served 4 months consecutively to that on Charge 10, and 16 months will be concurrent.  On Charge 13, entry was occasioned to the offices, fortunately somewhat superficial.  I take, in that case, a starting point of 3 months, reduced to 2 months for your plea of guilty.  That will be served consecutively, a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.