HKSAR v. Cheung Chun Shing, Lum

DCCC 196/2020

[2020] HKDC 1207

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 196 OF 2020

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of attempted burglary of Room D on the 1st Floor of Kim Tin Building, Nos. 162-170 Reclamation Street in Yau Ma Tei, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1] and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance[2].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in my reasons for verdict handed down today.  In summary at about 00:30 a.m. on 19 February this year Mr Liu, the owner and occupier of Room D, was about to go to sleep when he heard the sound of someone walking on the scaffolding outside the windows of his room.  Mr Liu looked out through the opening in the curtains and saw a Chinese male on the scaffolding outside his bedroom.  The Chinese male walked along the scaffolding and stopped outside Mr Liu’s living room where he shone a light into the living room and knocked on the window intermittently for about seven minutes. 

3.At around 00:48 a.m. Mr Liu called the police who arrived at about 00:55 a.m.  The police saw the defendant on the scaffolding and asked the defendant to come down for enquiries.  While the police were conducting enquiries Mr Liu went downstairs and identified the defendant as the male he saw on the scaffolding outside his flat.

4.The defendant, who was wearing safety equipment and a black belt, was arrested for attempted burglary.  A saw was hanging on the black belt and also three waist bags.  A bunch of grey plastic straps used to tie scaffolding was also found with the black belt.  In the police station the police found a mobile phone, a folding knife, a screwdriver and a pair of pliers in the waist bags.

Mitigation

5.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Ms Ko, including that the defendant is the sole breadwinner of his family consisting of his parents and nephew.  I note the defendant’s mother, god mother and a friend are in court to show their support for the defendant.    

6.The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years’ imprisonment. 

7.I am satisfied the starting point is not to be reduced by reason of the fact that the defendant was arrested before succeeding in breaking into Room D and was therefore unable to steal anything.  

8.I find no grounds to reduce the starting point.  The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.