HKSAR v. Chow Kam Shing

DCCC 1043/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1043 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Particulars of the charge are that the defendant on 22^nd May 2015 entered Room B, 2^nd floor, no.70 Ki Lung Street in Mongkok as a trespasser and stole 2 bracelets, a jewellery box, a pair of earrings, a wrist chain, a necklace and about $1,000 cash.

Summary of facts

2.Occupants of Room B left the premises at around 7:30am on 22^nd May 2015 after securing the wooden door and iron gate. Upon returning at around 4:30pm the same day, the place was ransacked and the matter was reported to the police.

3.Police officers attended the scene and lifted a palm print impression from the living room window frame, which matched that of the defendant.

4.Further investigation revealed that the defendant had pawned the stolen earrings and wrist chain at a pawn shop in Mongkok. The defendant was arrested on 6^th November 2015 when he attempted to depart Hong Kong via Lowu Border Crossing. The defendant remained silent under caution.

5.At a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant however admitted under caution to climbing into the premises via an open window and stole the property in question.

Previous convictions

6.The defendant has 11 convictions from 7 court appearances. His last convictions were for Theft and Criminal Damage when he was sentenced to 7 weeks’ imprisonment in October 2011. There was one other conviction relating to dishonesty back in 1993 when he was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.

Mitigation

7.The defendant is 50, born and raised in Hong Kong, educated up to Form 2 level. The defendant and his former girlfriend have a 3 year old son, whose custody was granted to the defendant. As a result of the defendant’s incarceration, the son is being looked after by the former girlfriend who is finding it difficult.

8.The defendant wrote a letter in mitigation, explaining that he was desperately trying to provide for his son and so committed the present offence, asking for leniency.

Sentencing Guidelines

9.It is not disputed that the premises being burgled was a domestic premises. The guideline sentence for burglary of a domestic premises by a first offender of full age is that of 3 years’ imprisonment[1].

Sentence

10.Since it is not disputed that the burgled premises is a domestic premises, the correct starting point is that of 3 years’ imprisonment. The burglary took place during daytime when no one was home and hence less risk of confrontation. There was no damage to the door lock or the premises.

11.Although the defendant is not a first offender and is someone with previous convictions, bearing in mind the last conviction was some 4 odd years ago and the conspiracy to rob conviction was back in 1993, I will not take his previous records as an aggravating factor.

12.Although the defendant has a son to look after, he should have thought about his welfare before committing the present offence. As such, I will not take that as a mitigating factor.

13.The defendant’s guilty plea is the only ground for discount.

14.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.