HKSAR v. Koo Tsang Wing

DCCC 361/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 361 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of burglary committed with an unknown person. 

2.At all material times, PW1 resided alone in a flat on the 11^th floor of a building in Happy Valley.  At about 5 pm on the date in question, she left the flat after securing all doors and windows. 

3.At about 9:45 pm, she returned to the outside of the flat but could not open the front door as it was latched by someone from inside.  She made a report to the police. 

4.She instructed the police to break open the rear entrance to enter the flat.  The door of the balcony was found to be opened.  There were signs of ransacking in the rooms. An assortment of valuables was stolen, valued at about $2,286,000 in total. 

5.The police on patrol in the vicinity heard some noises from the car park and saw the Defendant, who was wearing gloves, jump off to the ground from the scaffolding.  Upon enquiry, they arrested him for burglary.  Under caution, he admitted the offence and referred to a location at the hillside where he had hidden the stolen handbags and other property besides some tools such as 2 iron saws, 3 screwdrivers, a pair of pliers, a cutter, a spanner, a rope, 2 pairs of gloves, 2 masks, and an iron bar.  The police had PW1 check and confirm the stolen property to be her lost property.  She suffered no loss. 

6.The building’s CCTV system captured the Defendant and an unknown person both wearing masks climbing up the tree outside the building onto the scaffolding at 8:20 pm and they climbed down the scaffolding with some bags to the podium of the building and the car park at 10:14 pm. 

7.In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant admitted having the tools and using them to commit the burglary. 

Mitigation

8.The Defendant is aged 59, a casual construction worker.  He was last released from prison on 8 November 2016, not long before the present offence, for burglary, the ninth of its kind since 1984. 

9.His solicitor Mr. Lam informs me that the Defendant admits joint enterprise with another person.   

10.In HKSAR v Ng Lim-ching DCCC 994/2016 the defendant a burglar had his starting point increased by 9 months for his repeat offending.  He had 20 burglaries and 3 thefts up to recent years in his criminal record.  Mr. Lam submits that that defendant’s record is worse than his client’s, hence more aggravated in the sentence.   

Sentencing guidelines

11.In R v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, the Court of Appeal states that for burglary of domestic premises with no aggravating factors, 3 years shall be the proper starting point for a first offender of full age.

Sentencing the Defendant

12.This is the joint enterprise of 2 burglars.  I would have increased the starting point by 6 months but for the fact that it was only due to the Defendant’s own admission that this case of joint enterprise can be made out. 

13.He is a recidivist burglar. I add 6 months to the starting point for more deterrence. 

14.I have considered the high value of the stolen property as a possible aggravating factor.    However, this is countered by the recovery of all stolen property. In this regard, there is no call to modify the starting point any more. 

15.The starting point is 3 years 6 months.  After a one-third discount for his timely plea of guilty, the sentence is 2 years 4 months.