HKSAR v. Leung Yau Sing

DCCC 434/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 434 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to burglary. At 3:30 pm on 12 April 2015, Madam LUK, a waitress of a Korean restaurant in Wan Chai, was taking a nap when the restaurant was closed with the lights off.

2.At about 4:30 pm, she heard a bang and the jingles of coins coming from the cashier area.  She went to the cashier area and found a cash box (later found to contain $2,283.4) missing.  There was another bang coming from the back door.  She went out through the back door and saw the Defendant in the rear lane walking towards the west.  There was no one else in the rear lane.  She followed him for some time up to Hennessy Road.  She saw Mr. CHAN, the manager of the restaurant, and asked him to join in the chase.  They stopped the Defendant on Hennessy Road.  The cash box was found hidden under the Defendant’s T-shirt at the abdomen area. The case was reported to the police. 

3.After being arrested for burglary and cautioned, the Defendant admitted stealing the cash box for being in debt. 

4.Madam LUK confirmed that the back door had not been locked when the restaurant was closed.  CCTV footage showed that a male had entered the restaurant through the back door at 4:40 pm, stolen the cash box at 4:42 pm, and left through the back door about 27 seconds later. 

5.In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant said as follows:

(1) He had entered to steal the cash box through the back door;

(2) The back door was unsecured and left ajar;

(3) He had originally intended to enter the restaurant to find a friend to borrow money;

(4) He did not use the main entrance as he knew that it was locked;

(5) He stole the cash box so that he could repay his debt with the cash inside;

(6) He had hidden the cash box under his T-shirt at the abdomen area.

Mitigation

6.He is aged 38, educated up to F. 1 level. Before arrest, he worked as a causal deliveryman.  He has 9 previous records for theft (last in 2014) and 4 records for burglary (last in 2012).  He committed the present offence out of momentary greed. 

Sentencing guidelines for non-domestic premises

7.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, the Court of Appeal said that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises would be 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age.  As explained by Macdougall JA in HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing, CACC 450/2000, such a starting point has already included certain basic planning.  A lower sentence may be passed for an opportunistic burglar or sneak thief. 

Sentencing this defendant

8.The entry and stealing lasted only 2 minutes.  He had not brought along any tools for breaking in.  There was no ransacking.  The loss was fully recovered.  He was an opportunistic burglar. However, his criminal records showed that a recidivism for theft and burglary. I would have taken 15 months as the starting point without this aggravating factor.  Now I take 18 months.  I give a one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  The sentence is 12 months.