HKSAR v. Chu Chun Hung, Ricker and Another
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 159/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 31 July 2017.
1. There are two defendants in this case. D1 and D2 are jointly charged with three counts of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 159/2017 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 159 OF 2017 ----------------------------
----------------------------
--------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE --------------------------------------- 1.There are two defendants in this case. D1 and D2 are jointly charged with three counts of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Summary of Facts Charge 1 2.D1 and D2 are lovers. On 9 December 2016, D1 and D2, together with two of their friends, entered an unattended domestic premises at Room 3906, Tak Cheung House, Tak Long Estate, Kai Tak, Kowloon, Hong Kong as trespassers. They used a crowbar to prize open the metal gate and the door of the premises. Upon entered the premises, they stole various properties including jewelries, watches and handbags as particularized in the charge. The total value of the stolen properties is about HK$59,350. 3.CCTV captured D1 and D2 entered the building where the premises is located on the material day. Charges 2 and 3 4.On 12 December 2016, D1 and D2 entered into Wah May Building, Nos 36A-36B Shan Tung Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the Building”). They told the security guard of the Building that they were the staff of a hardware tools shop and they were going to Flat A1, 6th Floor, Block A (“the Flat”) of the Building which was used as a warehouse to retrieve some goods. 5.D1 and D2 entered the Flat as trespassers and took 24 boxes of metal goods including rivets, spray paint, plastic plugs and masks. The total value of the stolen goods is HK$19,000. D1 put all the goods on a trolley and took them away. 6.On 14 December 2016, D1 went to the Flat again while D2 waited for him outside the Building. D1 entered the Flat again as a trespasser and used a trolley to take away 24 more boxes of metal goods including rivets, plastic plugs and spray paint. The total value of the stolen goods is HK$29,000. 7.CCTV captured D1 and D2 entered the Building at 1:25 pm on 12 December 2016 and D1 entered the Building again at about 2:30 pm on 14 December 2016. Record of Interview 8.In the video-recorded interviews, D1 admitted he entered the Premises on 9 December 2016 with D2 and some friends. They stole some handbags and jewelries from the Premises. He also admitted that he entered the Flat on both 12 and 14 December 2016 and stole some metal goods with a trolley. Later the stolen metal goods were sold to a recycling shop on two occasions for a total of HK$3,000. 9.In her video-recorded interviews, D2 also admitted that she entered the Premises with D1 as trespassers on 9 December 2016 and they stole some handbags, jewelries and clothes. She also made full confession as to her involvement in Charges 2 and 3. Mitigation 10.D1 is 35 years old. D2 and him are in a relationship for about 2 years. He received Form 5 education and had been working as waiter, clerk, driver and hairdresser. He has 10 previous convictions and the offences he committed include robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of offensive weapon and some traffic offences. 11.D2 is 29 and single. She has two young daughters from previous relationship and they are taken care of by D2’s parents. D2 used to own a shop selling children clothes but the shop was closed in 2015. She has been unemployed since then. She has one previous conviction in 2007 of possession of dangerous drug where she was sentenced to the drug addiction treatment centre. 12.Defence submitted that both defendants are very remorseful now. They were fully co-operative with the police and had indicated that they would plead guilty to all charges at the earliest opportunity. It was submitted that the three charges were committed within a short period of time. There is no evidence to show that these offences were pre-meditated. As there are three charges, defence urged the court to consider the totality principle and to impose a lenient sentence to both defendants. Sentencing Consideration 13.The Court of Appeal had set down clear guidelines in sentencing cases of burglary. For burglary of domestic premises, for a first offender where there are no aggravating circumstances, the starting point should be 3 years’ imprisonment: HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565. For burglary of commercial premises, the appropriate starting point should be 2.5 years’ imprisonment: R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80. 14.In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai [2008] HKCU 932, Yeung JA set out the following aggravating features: -
15.There are indeed some aggravating features in this case. For example, the offences were committed by two or more people and a trolley was used when committed Charges 2 and 3. Further, D1 has a bad criminal record. On the other hand, for charges 2 and 3, I accept the submission of the defence that the premises involved should be treated as non-domestic premises as it was used for non-domestic purpose. Therefore, a lower starting point should be adopted. 16.Considered all the circumstances of the case, the background of the defendants, their criminal records, and all the things put forward in mitigation, the starting point for Charge 1 should be 3 years’ imprisonment. For both Charge 2 and Charge 3, the starting point should be 2.5 years’ imprisonments. After giving one-third discount to the guilty pleas, for Charge 1, both D1 and D2 are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. For Charge 2 and Charge 3, both D1 and D2 are sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. After considered the totality principle, for D1, I order that 3 months’ imprisonment of each of Charge 2 and Charge 3 to be served consecutively to other sentences. For D2, her role is comparatively minor and she has a much better criminal record, I order that 1 months’ imprisonment of each of Charge 2 and Charge 3 to be served consecutively to other sentences. 17.As a result, the total sentence for D1 is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. For D2, the total sentence is 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
|