HKSAR v. Eng Dut Fon

DCCC 407/2019

[2019] HKDC 1368

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 407 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.This is a case of domestic burglary.  

2.During lunchtime on 14 March 2019, an off-duty police officer happened to be travelling in the same minibus with the defendant, who took out some red packets for a look, which aroused the suspicion of the officer.

3.The officer followed the defendant to get off and then stopped him for enquiries, but as soon as he realized he was being stopped by a police officer the defendant immediately took to his heels. After a brief chase, the defendant was eventually subdued.

4.In his trousers’ pocket, the officer found a variety of stolen items- 2 gold bracelets, one gold plate, one gold coin, one gold necklace, one gold necklace with pendant, one silver necklace with pendant, 3 rings and 37 red packets with $1,700 cash in it (total value of stolen properties is $67,200).

5.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had burgled a flat in a residential building in Tai Nan Street, Mong Kok by climbing up the scaffolding.

6.The owner of the flat, Madam Ho, returned home later in the afternoon and discovered that the flat had been ransacked. A report was made to the police. Madam Ho confirmed those items found on the defendant were hers.

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

8.The defendant, a 57-year-old married man with no children, has a rather long criminal record - 14 previous convictions, 10 of which are dishonesty offences (4 offences of burglary). His first conviction going back as early as 1983 - he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for possession of imitation firearms, and his last conviction is burglary in 2016 for which he was sent to prison for 26 months.

9.In mitigation, counsel for the defendant emphasized that the defendant had been cooperative with the police from the beginning telling them everything they needed to know; he acted alone without accomplice.

10.While accepting that the stolen properties are not of small value, counsel submitted that they had all been recovered, the victim suffered no loss indeed. And in the course of committing the crime, the defendant did not cause any injury to anyone. It was done while the occupant was away, so no one was alarmed.

11.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence - for domestic burglary, the term for consideration in the absence of any aggravating factor is one of 3 years.

12.Given the facts of the present case, I take 3 years as the starting point; and looking at his criminal record, he is no doubt a repeat offender and for that matter, I add a further 3 months, which take the starting point to 3 years and 3 months.

13.Insofar as his mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea there is not anything of substance. Giving a third discount for his plea, the starting point is reduced to 2 years and 2 months.

14.There being no reason for any further reduction, the final sentence is one of 26 months’ imprisonment.