HKSAR v. Chan Ka Kit
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 412/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of burglary.
Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 412/2018 [2018] HKDC 1456 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 412 OF 2018 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge and facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of burglary. 2.The guesthouse situated at Flat A, 4th Floor, Kingland Apartment, Nos. 737-741C Nathan Road, Mongkok, Kowloon ("the Guesthouse") was partitioned into 8 rooms. Each room had a washroom and a window. Flat A was locked at all material times and a key was needed to gain entry into it. Scaffoldings were erected outside the building. 3.On 18 February 2017, Mainland tourist Madam CHEN (“PW1”) was staying at Room No. 8 of the Guesthouse. She was given the keys for Flat A and Room No. 8. No housekeeping services were provided. 4.On 18 February 2017, she purchased the following items:
5.She placed Exhibits 1 to 4 together with the relevant sales receipts inside a pink zipper bag and placed it on top of her luggage before going out at around 9:00 am on 19 February 2017. When she left Room No.8, she locked the window and the door. She also turned off the light. When she returned at around 4:30 pm, she discovered that the light was switched on, the window was opened and the window frame showed signs of prizing with the bolts loosened. Exhibits 1 to 4 together with the relevant sales receipts were missing from the pink zipper bag, which was unzipped. She forthwith lodged a report to the police. 6.Police investigation revealed that the crown-shaped ring (Exhibit 1) had been pawned at Tung Sang Pawnshop on 19 February 2017. She subsequently confirmed that it was her ring. The shopkeeper of Tung Sang Pawnshop Mr. CHIU (“PW2”) confirmed that he had been able to tally the appearance of the person pawning the item with the identity card produced. He had recorded the name and identity card number of that person, i.e. the Defendant. 7.One of the fingerprints lifted from the wall next to the window inside Room No. 8 was found to match with the Defendant’s. 8.The Defendant was arrested. He admitted to the police that he had stayed at the Guesthouse between January 2016 to February 2017 but denied committing the burglary. Personal background and mitigation 9.The Defendant is aged 32. He was a casual worker at the time of arrest. He had 12 criminal records in 7 court cases. Amongst them were 1 theft and 2 fraud records for which he was sentenced to between 6 and 8 months in March 2017. The length of sentences reflects that those were not as serious as the present offence. This time I am not going to aggravate his present sentence because of them. 10.There is a discussion between this Court and his counsel as to whether or how to make part of his last sentences overlap with his present case. The difficulty is that he had already completed all his last sentences in late April 2018, i.e. 6 ½ months before today. He was detained for the past 6 ½ months pending disposal of the present case apparently because he could not get bail due to his history of jumping bail. The long and short of all these is that it is impossible for me to order any overlapping sentences. Sentencing guidelines for residential premises 11.In R v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, the Court of Appeal states that for burglary of residential premises with no aggravating factors, 3 years shall be the proper starting point for a first offender of full age. Sentencing this Defendant 12.I classify the Guesthouse as residential premises as the occupants were staying there like their own houses. I take a starting point of 3 years. There is no other mitigating factor apart from the timely plea of guilty. After one-third discount, the sentence is 2 years.
|
Cases cited in this judgment