HKSAR v. LEE KING LUNG HAPPY

DCCC 1035/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1035 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

Summary of Facts

2.  The premises in question, located at Room 68C, 1^st floor, Wah Fat building, Nos 60-72 Tung Ming Street, Kwun Tong, was owned by the late Mr Li Chi-man (“the deceased” (male, aged 67).  For about 10 years’ time, the defendant was a tenant of one of the rooms of the premises  while the deceased was occupying the other room.

3.  At about 1153 hours on 21 July 2016, the deceased was found collapsed inside his room and the defendant called the police. The deceased was certified dead upon arrival at the hospital on the same day.

4.  Shortly after the deceased was sent to the hospital, the defendant went into the deceased’s room and stole cash in the sum of HKD $14,000 from the deceased’s safe box which was attached to the bed with a chain under a pillow.

5.  The missing of the cash was soon discovered by a close friend of the deceased who subsequently made a report to the police on the same day.  The police then conducted investigation at the premises and found the defendant acting furtively. Upon search, the defendant was found to have HKD$ 10,657.20 cash in his possession.

6.  Upon arrest and under caution, the defendant admitted that he had stolen the money from the deceased’s bedroom and the money was taken for gambling.  In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant further admitted that he had taken HK$ 14,000 from the safe box inside the deceased’s bedroom which was exclusively used by the deceased.

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is 61 years’ old, a divorcee with two grown up children. He had no contact at all with his family and was living in the premises in question for 10 years. He worked as an occupational therapist until 2005 when he was terminated.  After that, he worked as a security guard earning $13,500 until the date of the offence.  Most of the income was given to his ex-wife as alimony. I am told that the defendant has suffered from stomach cancer and is on regular medication. The defendant is of clear record.

Sentence

8.  There is a well-settled sentencing guideline for burglary of domestic premises.  According to the guideline, a starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years’ imprisonment. 

9.  In the present case, there are no such aggravating factors as stated in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, CACC 338-339/2007. Obviously, the defendant was an opportunist and committed the offence out of momentary greed.

10.  Having considered all circumstances, I take the usual starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. I give a reduction of 6 months for the defendant’s clear record, old age, having gainful employment all along and the fact that the defendant was entering an open empty room in the same premises he was living at the material time. Furthermore, most of the money could be recovered and he made a frank admission upon taxing by the police.

11.  After the full one third discount due to his timely guilty plea, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment accordingly.