HKSAR v. Yuen Wah Keung

DCCC 158/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 158 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant, Yuen Wah Keung, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of burglary.

2.The offence in question took place on 8 June 2015.  On the offence date, the defendant trespassed into a building at Peace Avenue, Mong Kok, and stole therein five pairs of shoes and one pair of slippers. 

3.Madam Yuen is the owner of the rooftop in question and the unit on the 4th Floor, No 6A, Peace Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong.  Madam Brucales is Madam Yuen’s domestic helper and she resides at the rooftop whilst Madam Yuen resides in the unit on the 4^th floor.

4.The building in question consists of four storeys, with two units on each floor.  There is a front and rear entrance to the rooftop with a flight of staircase on each side.  There is a living room, a bathroom, a bedroom and two storerooms on the rooftop.

5.On 8 June 2015 at about 7 am, Madam Brucales was taking a shower in the rooftop bathroom and she heard somebody opening the door of a storeroom.  She left the bathroom to see what happened.  She saw the defendant standing outside one of the storerooms.  She was very frightened and she ran into her bedroom.  From the window, she saw the defendant running to the other side of the rooftop and left via the rear entrance.  She notified her employer, Madam Yuen, and the case was reported.

6.Madam Yuen found ransacking signs in the two storerooms, but nothing was missing inside.  She then discovered that five pairs of sports shoes and one pair of slippers were missing from the shoe rack at the front staircase between the 4^th floor and the rooftop.  She later recovered two pairs of sports shoes from the rear staircase of the building.  The missing three pairs of sports shoes and the pair of slippers valued at about $1,600 in total.

7.The CCTV footages of the building captured the defendant leaving the building from the rear entrance, carrying with him several pairs of shoes.

8.On 9 June 2015, at around 5:36 pm, PC 14130 and PC 10535 were patrolling at Waterloo Road near Peace Avenue.  PC 14130 recognised the defendant to be the man he had seen in the relevant CCTV footages.  He arrested the defendant.

9.Under caution, the defendant admitted since his shoes were torn, he stole a few pairs of shoes from the rooftop of a building in Peace Avenue out of greed.

10.In the video recorded interview conducted on 10 June 2016, the defendant admitted under caution that he entered the building at No 6A, Peace Avenue at around 8 am on 8 June 2015. He entered through the rear entrance and went up to the rooftop which was not locked.  He then went to the front staircases of the rooftop and took away a few pairs of shoes.  He stole them out of greed since his own shoes were torn. He stayed at the rooftop for around 7 to 10 minutes and left via the rear staircases.  The stolen shoes did not fit him so he had thrown them away. 

11.Madam Brucales identified the defendant in an identification parade conducted on 23 June 2015.

12.The criminal record of the defendant shows that the defendant was first convicted of a criminal offence back in 1992.  He has a total of 34 previous court appearances, resulting in quite a number of previous convictions, but he has no previous conviction for burglary.  He had been convicted on five previous occasions for theft and two for robbery.

13.On 11 April 2015, the defendant was convicted of an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and some other drug-related offences and he was sentenced to a total term of 38 months’ imprisonment.

14.The antecedent statement of the defendant shows that he is now 38 years of age.  He had received education up to Form 3.  He was unemployed at the time of the offence.

15.Mr Chan mitigated for the defendant and submitted that the defendant committed the offence out of greed.  He is very remorseful for what he had done.  The guilty plea of the defendant has saved the court’s time.  The criminal record of the defendant shows that he had no similar conviction for burglary.

16.Mr Chan submitted that the burglary in question was opportunistic in nature, as the defendant entered the building via the rear entrance.  After defendant had entered the building, he went up to the building and all the doors were unlocked.  He carried no tools and no weapons and no damage was done to the property.  No harm was done to any person.  He left two pairs of shoes stolen behind and carried away three pairs of shoes and one pair of slippers.

17.For the 38 months’ imprisonment that the defendant is now serving for the drugs case, Mr Chan asked me to bear in mind the totality principle and pass a partly consecutive sentence in the present case.

18.In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the facts of this case, the background information of the defendant, and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Chan.

19.The facts as admitted by the defendant show that the rooftop in question has a living room, a bathroom and a bedroom and two storerooms.  Hence, it was a domestic premises at the material time.

20.In my judgment, a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

21.Mr Chan submitted that the burglary was opportunistic in nature. 

22.I do not agree.  The defendant entered the building and went up all the way to the rooftop with the intention to steal.  The defendant knew very well that the premises in question was occupied by people.  He entered into the building and ransacked the premises.

23.There is nothing before me which calls for the departure from the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

24.The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge.  He is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 2 years’ imprisonment.

25.For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment for the offence of burglary.

26.The defendant is now serving a total term of 38 months’ imprisonment for DC 1059/2015. 

27.Bearing in mind the principles of totality, I order 12 months of the sentence in the present case to run consecutively to the 38 months’ imprisonment that the defendant is now serving.