HKSAR v. Lui Kwong Wing

DCCC 471/2018

[2018] HKDC 1305

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 471 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.This is a case of smash and grab on a jeweller by a group of burglars.

2.The 55-year-old defendant, acting in concert with two other men, broke into a shuttered jewellery shop in North Point in the middle of the night, smashed the display window, grabbed valuables, and then ran away with loot worth over one million dollars.

3.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary.

4.About 8 p.m. on 8 December 2017, the proprietors, Mr. and Mrs. Hui, closed business at the end of the day by putting up the shutters which were secured by two bolt locks and then went home. The most expensive merchandise had been put back into the safe in the shop while the less expensive ones were just left in the display windows.

5.Waken up by a call from the security company at around 4 O’clock in the morning after the alarm at the shop went off, the couple immediately went back to the shop.  In the meantime, a security guard went over to have a look and crossed the path of the thieves - two of them were just getting out of the shop with one carrying a travel bag; they then got into a get-away car fleeing the scene.   

6.By the time the couple arrived on the scene, the thieves had long gone. They discovered that the bolt locks had been cut open, one display window smashed and some merchandise behind it stolen. 

7.It was later confirmed that the stolen merchandise is 84.594 taels of gold bracelets and 7.5 taels of gold ornaments, the total value of which amounts to HK$1,096,200.

8.The evidence which connected the defendant to the crime was his blood left at the scene of crime; the forensic people had found some blood stains in the shop which, on DNA examination, matched with the defendant’s.

9.It was not until three and a half months later did the police apprehend the defendant. In his interview with the police, he confessed frankly to the crime; although he was very forthcoming about their burglary plot, he was tight-lipped about the identity of his accomplices.

10.He told the police that they used a hydraulic cutter to cut open the bolt locks and an axe to smash the display window; he hurt his hand by the broken glass while grabbing valuables; they managed to sell off the loot for about $700,000 and shared among them the proceeds.   

11.The defendant was married in 1992 but after 10 years of marriage, they divorced; his two children, a son and a daughter, do not stay with the defendant who is now living alone in a public housing unit in Shatin.  

12.The defendant has amassed 11 prior convictions, most of them are drug-related with one previous similar which is aggravated burglary in 1987 for which he was sentenced to 4 years. His last conviction is possession of dutiable goods in 2014 and he was given a fine; 4 years before that, he served a rather lengthy prison term for trafficking.

13.There isn’t much put forward by way of mitigation except that counsel said the defendant committed the crime for financial reason because he needed money to support his mother who was suffering from kidney disease at the time.

14.For a simple burglary on non-dwellings, the usual sentence is one of 30 months’ imprisonment. The instant case, however, is something out of the ordinary in that it was done by 3 persons instead of one (a group action) with cutting tools to break in the shop (damage done to the shop). Undoubtedly, this was a well-planned and professional burglary, and for this reason, I take a higher starting point than usual, i.e. 36 months.

15.The aggravation does not end here because the thieves had got away with stolen property worth over a million and none of which has so far been recovered – that would mean a substantial loss to the victims. For that matter, I would add 6 months and thus take the starting point up to 42 months.

16.Insofar as mitigation is concerned, there isn’t anything of substance except his timely plea of guilty. Giving the one-third discount, the starting point is reduced to 28 months. As there is no reason for further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.