HKSAR v. Lee Chun Sang

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1070/2016 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 20 February 2017.

1. Lee Chun Sang you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance [1] .

Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases

Case No.DCCC 1070/2016
Court
District Court
Date20 Feb 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 1070/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1070 OF 2016

____________

  HKSAR  
  v  
   LEE CHUN SANG  

____________

Before: HH Judge Dufton
Date: 20 February 2017
Present: Mr Chung Boey, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Anthony Kwan of Anthony Kwan & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the defendant
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE


1.Lee Chun Sang you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in the facts admitted by you today.  In July of last year, you lived at the home of your friend Chu Ming Ming in San Hui Village in Tuen Mun for one week.  Afterwards you would occasionally visit your friend.

3.On 8 September you called your friend saying you wanted to take a shower in her home.  Your friend was not at home at the time and refused your request.  You then kicked open the door of the flat and stole the dog and $5,000 cash.

4.On 18 September you were arrested by the police at which time you had the dog with you.  The dog was in good health and had not been harmed. 

Mitigation

5.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Kwan, including your relationship with your friend; that this is not the usual type of burglary that comes before the court and that the dog was not harmed.

6.I take into account although you have a long record, you have no convictions for burglary and you last appeared before the court in 2008. 

Burglary

7.The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment. 

8.Lower starting points have been taken where the burglary is said to be opportunistic, for example where someone passes by an open door or vacant premises and steals food or items of little value[2].

9.The burglary cannot really be described as opportunistic, however, I accept the circumstances are different to the usual burglary that comes before the court.  

10.I am satisfied a starting point of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment is appropriate. Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.

Compensation

11.You have arranged for the sum of $5,000 to be paid into court today so that your friend can be compensated for her loss.  Giving you credit for this payment I reduce the sentence by 3 months to 1 year and 3 months imprisonment.

12.You are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 3 months imprisonment.



  (D. J. DUFTON)
District Judge


[1]  Cap 210.

[2] See for example HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 260 and HKSAR v Chau Man Ying CACC 439/2011.

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case