HKSAR v. Yeung Tat Fun

DCCC 403/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 403 OF 2017

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Introduction

1.This is a shop burglary. The defendant burgled an upstairs shop in Russell Street, Causeway Bay, sometime after mid-night on 16 July 2016 and made off with a substantial amount of stock worth $310,000.

2.The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary.  

3.Before leaving, Mr. Cheung, the small business owner, locked up the shop after it closed at 9:30 p.m. the night before. He returned to the shop the following day only to find it had been burgled-the balcony door of the shop was dismantled. The burglar stole $3,000 cash, a desktop computer, 50 wallets, 30 pairs of sunglasses, 20 watches, 20 pieces of garments, 20 pieces of jewelry and 20 handbags.

4.The police have launched an investigation into the burglary and discovered an empty plastic bottle in the shop upon which the DNA of the defendant was found.    

5.The CCTV camera of a neighbouring convenience store captured the defendant buying a bottle of drink just before entering the building where the shop was and having consumed it, he left the bottle behind at the crime scene. The defendant was subsequently located by the police.

6.The defendant, aged 40, has amassed 16 previous convictions over the past 23 years, though the majority of which are drug-related, there are 3 similar offence of burglary (in 2001, 2012 and 2014) and some other dishonesty offences. The last two convictions, i.e. going equipped for stealing, came into being after the present case.

7.The court heard that he is the only child in the family, not yet married but his fiancee is in court today to show support for him.

8.In his letter to the court, the defendant expressed his remorse for what he had done and his wishes to look after his ageing parents, in particular his father whose health is declining. He has also registered as an organ donor with the Department of Health.

9.The court was told that there was this incident while in remand that one day when he and an inmate were assigned to do some cleaning work, he discovered his inmate had committed suicide so he immediately called for assistance. He took part in the rescue together with the correctional officers but his attempts at resuscitation failed and the inmate died eventually.

10.In the absence of aggravating features, the usual term for a non-domestic burglary is one of 30 months’ imprisonment. Given the facts of the present case, I would take 30 months as starting point, and aggravate that by 3 months to take into account the high value of the property stolen.  

11.Insofar as his mitigation is concerned, apart from his plea of guilty, there isn’t any other substantial mitigation. His plea is timely so he is entitled to a one-third discount which reduces the starting point to 22 months.

12.As there is nothing to justify a further reduction in sentence, he is sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.