HKSAR v. Tsang Hoi Sui

DCCC 357/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 357 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary committed respectively on 16 January 2017 and then 4 February 2017.

2.The offences occurred at the premises of a company called Honda Engineering, and they had a warehouse in Mongkok, and there was a lock on it that could be opened by way of a password.  

3.The defendant was a casual worker at the company, had been once since December 2015.  He moved air-conditioners and of course knew the password to the padlock.  

4.On 16 January 2017, the warehouse was secured. During that time, in the afternoon, it was found that various items, in fact 100 pieces of copper pipes valued at $30,000 were found to be taken, and the defendant later would admit to taking that, the copper wire.

5.The Charge 2 related to 4 February 2017, and the defendant was seen using a trolley to convey air-conditioners to a pavement nearby.  Some other air-conditioners were seen on the pavement.  The defendant ran away when he was spotted, leaving the trolley and six air-conditioners at the scene.  They were valued at about $18,000.

6.The defendant himself surrendered the next day. At Wong Tai Sin Police Station, he admitted stealing the copper wires.  He later said he had sold them for about $3,000.  In respect to the incident on 4 February, he said he had prised open the lock of the warehouse with some pliers and he had stolen the six air-conditioners because he was in financial difficulties.  And the defendant admits that today.  He admitted that in court.

7.As far as his antecedents are concerned, he is a man to date of clear record.  I have obtained a background report on him because he was of clear record.  This shows that he is currently aged 37.  He has a wife and a daughter although the daughter is by an ex-girlfriend. 

8.The defendant had an unfortunate recent history, and the conclusion of the background report is the defendant was brought up in a divorced family with inadequate parental supervision.  The defendant has had a habit of abusing methamphetamine since the age of 18, and that has caused for him the onset of psychosis.  He had been able to quit this unfortunate addiction for some years but it relapsed.  The defendant has found himself unable now to quit this vice habit.  That together with a gambling problem had led him into debt.  The defendant had basically run out of money and was stealing items to fund his lack of money.  He is remorseful for that.  The defendant is currently, I understand, under some treatment for his problem but really for the defendant to live an industrious life, he will at some point have to deal with his problem of addiction.

9.As far as the defendant is concerned, the mitigation can be seen in his pleas of guilty, his remorse, his surrendering himself to the police on the urging of his mother as I understand, and the fact the defendant is not a habitual or a regular criminal of any kind, reaching the age of 37 without committing any offences to date.

10.Now, the items taken, although they were taken from a place he had access to as a result of his work, were of low value. 

11.As far as sentencing is concerned, the offence of burglary is a serious offence and an immediate sentence of imprisonment is the normal sentence to be imposed.  These are what have been described as commercial, non-residential premises, and the starting point for sentence for such an offence where the offence is committed by a person of clear record, the sentence after trial would normally be a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, and I am dealing here with two offences committed close together in time. 

12.Now, in determining the starting point for sentence, obviously, 30 months’ imprisonment is the normal sentence to be imposed.  I take into account the defendant’s clear record, the fact that he surrendered himself to the police and also that the value of the items is comparatively low.  I shall take a starting point in this case for him on each of these offences of 27 months’ imprisonment.  He is entitled to a one-third deduction from that sentence, having regard to his plea of guilty. So the sentence on each charge will be one of 18 months’ imprisonment.

13.There are two offences here.  So they can be served entirely consecutively.  That of course would be an excessive sentence. I consider the appropriate overall sentence for these two offences is one of 21 months’ imprisonment.  I will achieve that by ordering that 3 months of the second offence be served consecutively to the first offence, the balance concurrently, a total of 21 months’ imprisonment.