HKSAR v. Wong Sui on

DCCC 775/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 775 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". The burgled premises are a partitioned room within a residential flat. The total value of the stolen properties was $13,540.

Summary of Facts

2.Mr. YU (PW1) resides at the address particularized in the Charge ("the Room").  About 6:00 pm on 30 July 2015, PW1 left the Room and locked the door.  About 5:30 pm on 1 August 2015, PW1 returned home and found the Room having been ransacked.  A total of 4 items were missing, namely 2 laptop computers, 1 external hard disk and 1 rucksack.

3.On 3 August, when PW1 was chatting with his landlord, the defendant suddenly approached PW1 and confessed that he had burgled the Room.  The defendant led PW1 and the landlord to the shop at which he sold PW1's computers.  Police officers later arrested the defendant.  Under caution, the defendant admitted having stolen 2 laptop computers and 1 hard disk from the Room out of greed.

4.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted in details how he burgled the Room.  He climbed into the Room through its bathroom window.  He took the computers and hard disk and put them in the rucksack.  He later discarded the hard disk and rucksack respectively at a garbage collection point and a rubbish bin.  He then sold the 2 computers at a shop for $350 and spent the money on food.

Mitigation & Sentence

5.The defendant is 44 and has 1 conviction record, which is not related to theft or dishonesty.  Defence lawyer Mr. CHENG informed me that the defendant is married with a daughter (aged 17).  His wife resides in the mainland.  He contributes $1,500 each month to support his daughter, who resides with the defendant's elder sister.  The defendant worked as a security guard earning $7,800 per month, but lost his job a few weeks before the offence. The defendant suffers from depression and receives out-patient psychiatric treatment.  At the time of the offence, the defendant was living in another partitioned room within the same flat. 

6.In mitigation, Mr. CHENG submitted that the defendant is truly remorseful.  He tried to buy back the 2 computers from the shop but was told that they had been sold.  The defendant confessed to PW1 and led him to the shop trying to help PW1 get his computers back.  The defendant is willing and ready to compensate PW1 in full the sum of his monetary loss.

7.A bundle of mitigation letters was placed before me; their contents a duly noted.

8.The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment.  Mr. CHENG has done all he could to mitigate on behalf of the defendant.  I will adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 2 years.  I am prepared to grant a further discount of 4 months to reflect the compensation made by the defendant.  Although PW1 is compensated for his monetary loss, the data stored in his computers and hard disk as well as their value may not be compensated by money.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment.