HKSAR v. Tang Chi Ho

DCCC 426/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 426 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty today to Charges 1 and 2. Charge 3 was left on the court file.

2.Charges 1 and 2 are both burglary offences.  The defendant burgled two separate premises of the same restaurant chain, Gold Medal Seafood Hot Pot. 

3.Charge 1 was committed on 20 January 2016, when the defendant burgled the Yau Ma Tei branch of this restaurant.  He stole five bottles of wine.

4.Charge 2 was committed on 26 February 2016, when the defendant burgled the Wanchai branch of the same restaurant.  He again stole five bottles of wine.

5.The facts are that these restaurants are locked and secured every evening.  However, they are opened fairly early for staff to prepare the restaurant and the chef to prepare food for the lunch-hour business.

6.The defendant is an ex-employee of this restaurant chain and had worked in both these branches.  From January 2015 to July 2015, he worked in the Wanchai branch.  The defendant from August 2015 to 18 January 2016 worked in the Yau Ma Tei branch.  He was fired on 18 January, which is two days before the first burglary.

7.On that morning he entered the restaurant at about 7.50 am and within five minutes of entering the restaurant he had gone into the VIP room, prised open the wooden door of the locked wine cabinet and stole five bottles of wine from within it.  The wine was worth $7,000 and these bottles belonged to a customer who left the wine in the restaurant. 

8.The burglary was discovered at about 4 pm by a staff member.  On the CCTV footage, the defendant is seen going in at the early hours of the morning and leaving with a bag.

9.On 26 February 2016 the staff of the Wanchai branch arrived at about 6.30 am.  They left the front door open.  At noon, staff discovered that a wine cabinet on the first floor of the restaurant had been prised open and five bottles of wine stolen.  Those five bottles of wine were worth $17,800.

10.On CCTV footage the defendant is seen at about 6.56 am prising open the wine cabinet.  He takes the wine, puts them in two bags and is gone within five minutes.

11.On 21 March 2016 a police officer who was very observant recognised the defendant at an MTR station in Jordan and followed him.  He followed the defendant for a short distance and then intercepted him.

12.He was arrested and, under caution, the defendant made a full admission.  The defendant told the police officers that he did commit the burglaries and stole out of greed.  He needed rent money and food money.

13.The defendant is not a man with a clear record. He has 24 convictions in 17 court appearances.  20 of those convictions are theft offences.  Defendant has been imprisoned on many occasions.  This is his first burglary conviction.

14.The defendant, having lost his job in the restaurant, obviously got into financial difficulty very quickly.  He took advantage of his knowledge of the workings of the hot pot restaurants and the staff movements.  Having worked there for a year, he would have known the value of the wine stored in locked wine cabinets.

15.The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.

16.He is 43 years old, single.  He has no siblings.  His father has passed away.  His mother now is retired and lives in an old age home.  The defendant, when he is not serving terms of imprisonment, has worked as a waiter.

17.In mitigation, counsel has said all he can on behalf of the defendant, and defendant asks for leniency.

18.The normal starting point for a burglary of non-domestic premises is one of 2 years and 6 months, where there is no aggravating or mitigating factors that exist.  I do not see any of those factors existing here.

19.I will take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months for both charges.

20.The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.

21.After that discount is applied, for both charges the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

22.I take into account the fact the charges were committed about one month apart.

23.I also take into account the totality principle.

24.I order that 4 months of Charge 2 be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.

25.Therefore, total term of imprisonment is one of 2 years.

COURT: Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Understand.