HKSAR v. Li Chi Kin

DCCC 493/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 493 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary. These three charges involve two premises. They are a shop front ground floor premises on Nga Tsin Long Road, Kowloon City. All the burglaries happened in the very early hours of the morning.

2.Charges 1 and 2 involve the same meat shop.  The 1st charge happened on 23 February 2016.  At about 4.30 am, the shop was opened up by a staff member, who left the main part of the shop unattended.  The defendant is seen on CCTV entering the shop and taking the cash box, which contained about $5,000.  It was placed near the entrance of the shop.

3.One month later, the same member of the staff had left cash and an iPad in a drawer in the shop.  She put it inside a drawer.  She did lock up the shop.  A delivery worker delivering meat came at about 3.15 in the morning, and after delivery, forgot to properly lock the roller shutter.  Not long after that delivery worker left, the defendant is seen on CCTV pulling up the roller shutter and entering the shop.  He was seen leaving the shop at about 4.30 am.  A couple of hours later, that staff member came to work and found that the drawer had been damaged and $4,500 cash and the iPad were missing.

4.On the same night as the defendant left this premises, he entered a grocery shop two doors down.  That shop had also been opened up very early in the morning by a staff member who was working at the back.  The defendant entered the open gate and stole $4,000 in cash from a bucket and drawer used to contain the money.

5.As I have said, the burglaries were actually captured on CCTV footage.

6.Some two weeks later, the defendant was seen loitering around the first store, the meat shop, at about 4 o’clock in the morning.  Police officers watched the defendant for some time before they intercepted him.  As the defendant looked like the male seen on the CCTV footage of the burglaries, they arrested the defendant.  At first he denied the burglaries, but after the defendant’s home was searched, he made a full admission to the police.  The iPad stolen was found in the defendant’s bedroom.

7.He made two video-recorded interviews in which he was frank and admitted the offences.  He told the police that he committed these offences out of momentary greed.  Seeing that the shops were not properly secure or locked up, or were in fact open, he entered the premises.

8.The defendant has just turned 24 years old.  He is a man with a clear record.  His entire family are here in court today to show their support.  I have nine letters of mitigation from family members and his girlfriend.  I also have a letter from the defendant.  I also have receipts to show that both premises have been compensated in full.  I have been told today that his family have paid on his behalf.

9.The defendant left school at Form 3, but despite that, he worked hard, and at the time of his arrest, he was working as first chef in a restaurant in Kowloon City.  I have been told in mitigation and in the letters that the defendant’s parents worked hard when he was young and in fact he was brought up by his grandmother, who is now 86 years old.  In fact, at the time of the offences, the defendant was living with his girlfriend and his grandmother in Kowloon City, very close to these victims’ shops and his restaurant.  He got a job in Kowloon City in the noodle restaurant to be near home.  I have been told his working hours were very long, between 11 am and midnight, with a three-hour break in the afternoon.  I have been also told in that time, he would buy his grandmother food and go home to check on her.  When these burglaries took place, apparently the defendant had finished work and had consumed some beers.

10.In one of the mitigation letters, it seems the defendant was in some financial difficulty, having incurred some debt.  This would explain his committing these offences.  All his family say that he has acted out of character committing these offences.  He has all along been a filial son and in particular a filial grandson.  He has worked hard since he left school and obtained a good post as a chef.

11.Mr Wong has said all he can on behalf of the defendant.  His mitigation has been very thorough and full.

12.It is accepted that a burglary of a non-domestic premises would attract a 2 year and 6 months’ starting point.  That is, if there are no aggravating or mitigating factors that exist.  Mr Wong says there are factors that can be considered as good mitigating factors, specifically, the defendant’s clear record and the fact he did not break into any premises; all the premises were either open or unlocked.  He took advantage of these premises being open at a very early hour of the morning ready for business.

13.I have been told that, from the letters, the defendant’s remorse is genuine.  His plea is proof of his remorse.  His family and the defendant are sure that he will not reoffend.

14.I agree with Mr Wong’s submission there is mitigation that would allow me to depart from the normal starting point.  I will reduce that starting point of 2 years and 6 months to one of 2 years for the mitigation I have heard and the circumstances of these burglaries.

15.I intend to reduce that by a further 3 months because there has been full restitution made to the victims.

16.The starting point is therefore one of 1 year and 9 months.

17.Defendant, please stand up.  You have pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third from that starting point. After that discount is applied, for each charge, you are sentenced to 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment.  I order that 2 months of Charge 2 be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.  I order that Charge 3 be served concurrently to Charge 1.

18.Therefore, it is a total sentence of 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand?