HKSAR v. Lau Wesley (also known as Lau Chung Hing)

DCCC 1094/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1094 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Burglary". He burgled 2 shops situated at a shopping mall on the same day.

Summary of Facts

2.Mr. CHAN (PW1) and Mr. TSANG (PW2) are the respective owners of the shops particularized in Charges 1 and 2 (Shops 1 and 2).  Both shops are situated on the 1^st Floor of a shopping mall in Yau Ma Tei.

3.PW1 left Shop 1 around 10:30 p.m. on 29 August 2016.  When he returned the following day, PW1 found the door of his shop having been prized and 2 boxes of "Lego" (collectively E1; valued at $578) missing.  This is Charge 1.

4.PW2 left Shop 2 around 9:00 p.m. on 29 August 2016.  When he returned the following day, PW2 found 3 boxes of cookies (collectively E2; valued at $225) missing from the display rack.  This is Charge 2.

5.The Police was alerted of both incidents.

6.CCTV footage captured the defendant prizing open the door of Shop 1 around 9:36 a.m. on 30 August 2016 and taking E1 from the shop.  CCTV footage also captured the defendant taking E2 from Shop 2 through the gap between its sliding doors around 9:40 a.m. on the same day.

7.The defendant was arrested by the Police on 27 September 2016.  He was wearing the same clothes he wore in the CCTV footage.  Under caution, the defendant admitted having stolen from Shops 1 and 2.  He claimed that he had sold E1 for $200 and had consumed all of E2.

Mitigation & Sentence

8.The defendant is 41 and has 26 conviction records, which included 1 "Burglary" offence and 19 "Theft" offences.  He was sentenced to a total of 8 months' imprisonment for 3 offences of "Theft" in October 2016 (TWCC 2192/2016).  His earliest release date is 8 March 2017.  Prosecuting counsel Ms. YIP informed me that the defendant committed the present offences whilst on bail in TWCC 2192/2016.

9.Defence solicitor Mr. YEUNG informed me that the defendant was a warehouse assistant earning about $12,000 per month.  In mitigation, Mr. YEUNG submitted that the defendant was going to have breakfast at the shopping mall in question.  He saw the gaps between the gates of the shops and decided to take away some toys and cookies. Mr. YEUNG stressed that no equipment was used and no pre-mediation was involved.  The defendant was cooperative with the Police.

10.I have viewed photographs of Shops 1 and 2. Both shops are very small in size; I, therefore, accept that the degree of "breaking in" was minimal. Based on the nature and value of the stolen items, I also accept that the defendant was probably an opportunistic burglar.

11.The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. Although "opportunistic burglaries" may justify a lower starting point, the defendant being a repeated offender of "Theft" would certainly bring the starting point right back up. The defendant having burgled 2 shops at once can be regarded as an aggravating factor[1] as well.

12.Having considered all relevant factors, I have decided not to raise or lower the starting point. I will adopt the usual starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment for each charge. With the guilty pleas, the sentence is reduced to 20 months each. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. The sentence for each charge is 20 months' imprisonment.

13.Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently; thereby arriving at a total prison term of 20 months. I also order the sentences in the present case to run consecutive to the existing sentences in TWCC 2192/2016.