HKSAR v. Law Wing Fai

DCCC 810/2019

[2020] HKDC 401

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 810 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant went to the Marine Department Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area on three different days within a space of 3 weeks to burgle some container offices there and made away with various properties.

2.He pleaded guilty before me to five counts of burglary with one count of theft (charge 5) being left on Court’s files.

3.Various companies have made use of containers for offices in the Public Cargo Working Area. A company occupied container office No.15 fell victim to the same burglar, i.e. the defendant, on all three occasions and lost the following properties:

4.On the second occasion, the defendant not only burgled container office No.15 but also two others occupied by different companies. In one of the container offices, he stole a notebook computer ($3,000), an iPhone ($1,000) and a router ($800) (charge 3) and in the other a grinder (RMB 600), three mobile phones, a cheque book, a digital camera and cash of RMB 150 (charge 4).

5.The defendant was captured on CCTV installed at the place forcing his way into the container offices. Two days after the last burglary (15 August), the defendant was arrested by a plainclothes officer in Sham Shui Po as he resembled the burglar captured on CCTV.

6.All of the stolen properties had been recovered from his home except the cash, the notebook computers, the chequebook and the grinder. Also seized was a crowbar which he admitted to the police that he had used it to prize open the containers to gain access. In addition, certain clothes were seized that matched those he was seen wearing in the CCTV images. 

7.The defendant, aged 50, is no stranger to the court, who has amassed 21 prior convictions over the past three decades, 7 of which are to do with dishonesty offences with only one burglary offence back in 2017 for which he was sent to jail for 26 months.  The rest are mainly drug-related and violent crimes.

8.The defendant, a divorcee, has a 3-year-old son and a 68-year-old mother to support.  At the time of the offence, the defendant worked as a part-time construction site worker earning about $6,000 a month.

9.In mitigation, counsel for the defendant, Mr. Chan, stressed the absence of aggravating features in the instant case, the timely pleas and his co-operation with the police.

10.Mr. Chan further tells the court that the defendant, now a middle-aged man, has come this far in life with a 3-year-old son, he is tired of going in and out of jail most of the times, and is determined to stand on his own feet after release from prison so as to provide a better life for his child. The defendant is therefore begging the court for leniency.   

11.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence, for non-domestic burglary such as the present case, a term of 30 months is the usual starting point in the absence of any aggravating factors.

12.For each of the charge, I take 30 months as the starting point, and reduce it to 20 months for his pleas; taking into account the totality principle, I order that charge 1 should run consecutively to 4 months of charge 2 and 4 months of charge 6, the rest concurrently, the total term is one of 28 months’ imprisonment.