HKSAR v. Hui Chun Yiu also known as Hui Fu Kit

DCCC 1123/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1123 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary.  It can be described as a domestic premises burglary.

2.He has agreed the facts.  They show the burglary occurred at a flat in Sau Mau Ping in Kowloon.  On the afternoon of 30 December 2015, the flat had been left locked, with an iron grille and wooden door locked.

3.On return to the flat in the small hours of 31 December, the next day, 2015, it was found that the iron grille of the flat was unlocked, the wooden door had been prised open, and there were signs of ransacking inside the flat.

4.The victim identified three things that had been stolen from the flat.  There was a diamond ring, which is described as Exhibit P1, valued at $10,000, a second diamond ring, valued at $10,000, and HK$2,500 and RMB300 in cash had gone.

5.When the police conducted an inquiry, they found the defendant’s fingerprint in the flat.  It was lifted from the front of the wooden door of the flat behind the iron grille.

6.Also, the Exhibit P1, the diamond ring, was pawned at a pawnshop in Yau Ma Tei on 31 December 2015 in the afternoon, and it was the defendant who came to the shop and pawned that diamond ring.  On 26 January 2016 he went to the pawnshop again and asked for the pawn value to be increased on that diamond ring.

7.The defendant was eventually arrested on 31 May 2016.

8.Those facts constitute the facts from which the irresistible inference the defendant was in fact the burglar can be drawn.

9.The defendant is aged 37, and educated to Secondary 3 level in Hong Kong.  He was in fact discharged from prison on 20 March 2015.  He is divorced, and he has a daughter, who is aged 9, and he lives with his elder brother in Tsui Ping Estate in Kwun Tong.  The defendant admits he has been a drug addict for a long period, and one assumes his need for money arises out of a desire to feed his addiction.

10.The mitigation advanced shows the defendant lives with his daughter and his parents, who are retired, in a public housing unit in Kwun Tong.  In mitigation, it would appear that the arrangements made for the daughter are satisfactory.  She is cared for by the parents and access is given to the natural mother.

11.The defendant says he committed the offence due to financial pressures.

12.The defendant has a criminal record showing 17 previous occasions in court.  His conviction record is dominated by offences relating to drugs; convicted of both possession and trafficking in dangerous drugs.  He has been sent to drug addiction treatment centre and received sentences of imprisonment for these offences.  He has offences of dishonesty involving shoplifting and handling stolen goods and theft.

13.For most of these he has been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre.  The defendant has a previous conviction for this offence of burglary from 17 November 2011, when he was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

14.Turning to the appropriate level of sentencing, the defendant admits to committing a domestic premises burglary. The starting point for sentence for a person convicted after trial of previous clear record for that offence is one of 3 years’ imprisonment; that is, 36 months’ imprisonment.

15.As for aggravating factors, there is one aggravating factor in this offence, and that is that the defendant has a previous conviction for this offence.  Although it was committed over some five years ago, it does show that previous sentencing has failed to deter the defendant from committing this offence.  The defendant also has a poor record for offences of dishonesty.

16.I did bear in mind the offence was some years ago, but I do consider it an aggravating factor that should be incorporated into the starting point for sentence in this case.  What I shall do is increase the starting point for sentence by 3 months’ imprisonment to 39 months’ imprisonment.

17.The mitigating factor is of course the defendant has pleaded guilty, and he has indicated that from appearance here in court, and is entitled to a full one-third discount for that.

18.Concerning whether any further discount was appropriate, I did consider the defendant’s position in relation to his daughter.  She will, of course, be denied his company and society as a result of a prison sentence.  However, I am satisfied the family has made proper arrangements for her and there is no need to add any further discount to reflect that.

19.The defendant’s discount from the starting point of sentence, one of 13 months - that is, one-third - leads to a final sentence of imprisonment of 26 months.