HKSAR v. TANG WAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 359/2020

[2020] HKDC 893

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 359 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendants in the instant case, together with two other men (Chan and WP2) who are still at large, burgled a fish stall at a market in Tin Shui Wai, New Territories in the small hours and got away with a safe with cash of about $85,000 in it.

2.  They pleaded guilty before me to one joint charge of burglary.

3.  On the evening of 22 March 2020, the owner of a fish stall, Mr Au Yeung, put $85,000 in cash in a safe which is kept in a steel cabinet and then left the shop.

4.  The interior and the exterior of the market is monitored by a CCTV system. On the following night, judging from the security footage, two of them (those who are still at large) cased the joint an hour before burgling it.

5.  At around 4 a.m., the four of them all wearing a face mask entered the market, took away the cabinet from the fish stall and left the market pushing a metal cart with the cabinet on it. The whole episode lasted for about 5 minutes.

6.  In fact, they chanced upon a security guard of the market on their way out, who asked them what they were doing, but they were able to lie their way out by putting up some lame excuses that “they were told by the boss to remove the old cabinet because a new one had been bought”. Not sensing anything amiss, the guard let them move on. It was not until the return of Mr Au Yeung to the shop later in the day was the burglary discovered.

7.  A few days later on the evening of 28 March, the police arrested D1 in the street, who made a full confession and with the information supplied by D1, the police were able to visit D2’s address later that night and had him arrested as well.

8.  Both defendants admitted to the police that they took part in the burglary of the fish stall with others and had stolen $90,000 in cash; the money had been shared among them, D1’s cut was $20,000 while D2 $10,000.

9.  D1 (39), who had never been in trouble with the law before, migrated to the USA at the age of 12 with his family, completed his tertiary education over there, and moved back to live in Hong Kong with some of the family members when he was 35.

10.  He is now separated from his girlfriend but they have two kids of tender age who are under the custody of the defendant and are being taken care of by the defendant’s mother.

11.  Counsel for D1, Mr Keung, said that the defendant was unable to find a steady job notwithstanding a degree in Information Technology under his belt, and thus spent more time in the games centres where he came to know his accomplices – an association he now regrets.

12.  In his letter to the court, D1 expressed remorse for what he had done and showed concern for his aging mother whose responsibility was to look after the defendant’s young children at the moment.

13.  Mr Keung submitted that the defendant should be entitled to a 45% discount because he had given police valuable information about two of his accomplices (the addresses of D2 and WP2) leading to the arrest of D2 and if necessary, he would be prepared to testify for the prosecution.

14.  D2 (33) has two prior convictions dissimilar to the present offence – possession of drugs and possession of obscene articles back in 2011 for which he was sent to DATC.

15.  D2, now divorced, has a 7-year-old son. They live with the defendant’s mother in a public housing unit in Tin Shui Wai. At the time of the offence, D2 was an air-conditioning technician on a temporary basis earning about $1,000 a day.

16.  Counsel for D2, Mr Ho, also urged the court to allow extra discount for his client because D2 had been co-operative with the police and given information leading to the arrest of one of the accomplices whose case has been listed in the District Court (DCCC 543/2020). D2 also expressed his willingness to act as a witness for the prosecution.

17.  As it turned out the valuable information given by D2 was that one of the culprits was the ex-employee of the fish stall whose name was Chan. Based on this, the police obtained further information from the owner leading to the arrest of Chan.

18.  An update on the accomplices – Miss Chao, the prosecuting counsel, informed the court that for Chan, his case was brought up today in the District Court in which he indicated that he would plead guilty, whilst for the other accomplice, he is due to appear on 4 November 2020 in the Magistrates’ Court but is not clear how he would plead.   

19.  Given the facts of the present case, I would take 30 months as the starting point, and clearly this was a group action which aggravated the matters for that I would add 3 months on top bringing the starting point up to 33 months.

20.  Apart from their timely pleas, the fact that they both had given valuable information to the police leading to the arrest and prosecution of other accomplices which, I assess, entitled them to an overall 40% discount.  

21.  Having given the aforesaid discount, as there being no other reasons for a further reduction, they are each sentenced to a term of 19 months and 24 days.