HKSAR v. Wong Siu Pun

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 78/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 25 May 2021.

1. The defendant pleads guilty to two charges of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance [1] .

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases

Case No.DCCC 78/2021[2021] HKDC 635
Court
District Court
Date25 May 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 78/2021

[2021] HKDC 635

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 78 OF 2021

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  WONG SIU PUN  

________________________

Before: HH Judge Dufton
Date: 25 May 2021
Present: Ms Memi Ng, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Ms Joyce Wu instructed by W.K. To & Co.,
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
Offences: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to two charges of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offences are set out in the summary of facts admitted by the defendant today. 

Charge 1

3.At around 7 p.m. on 31 May 2020 Ms Po, who lives in Room A on the 3rd Floor of Yue Yee Mansion, No. 92 Shung Ling Street in San Po Kong, left home. 

4.When Ms Po returned home at around 6:45 p.m. on 2 June 2020 she found prize marks on the door of her room and that the room had been ransacked.  Three cash boxes, $10,200 and two mobile phones were found missing.

5.The defendant’s fingerprint was found in a plastic box which Ms Po had purchased in May 2019 and kept inside her room ever since.    

Charge 2

6.At around 11:30 a.m. on 17 June 2020 Mr Cheng, who lives in Room C1 on the 2nd Floor, No.35 Kam Wing Street in San Po Kong, left home leaving a window slightly open.  

7.When Mr Cheng returned home at around 9 p.m. he found the window wide open and his room ransacked.  A box of heart medicine valued at around $550 was found missing.

8.CCTV footage between 3:15 p.m. and 3:39 p.m. captured the defendant wandering along the 2nd floor corridor and climbing onto the platform outside Mr Cheng’s room.

9.The defendant was arrested on 26 June 2020[2]. On a search of the defendant’s residence the police found the clothes the defendant was seen wearing on the CCTV footage. 

Mitigation

10.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Ms Wu, including that the defendant, who is 41, single and lives with his elder brother who is unable to work due to liver disease and avascular necrosis, is the breadwinner of the family[3].

11.Ms Wu explains that the defendant worked as a warehouse assistant on a casual basis but due to the pandemic was only able to work two to three days a week.  Unable to make ends meet the defendant committed the burglaries out of financial hardship[4].

Starting point

12.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.   I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial on each charge is 3 years’ imprisonment. 

Persistent offender

13.The defendant has appeared in court on 23 occasions amassing a total of 28 convictions.  Since 2009 the defendant has 17 convictions, all for offences of dishonesty including 8 convictions for burglary.  The defendant last appeared in court on 12 March 2019 when he was sentenced in DCCC 461/2018 to a total of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for two offences of burglary. 

14.The defendant was released from prison on 31 January 2020[5].  Four months later the defendant committed the first burglary.  I am satisfied that the defendant is a persistent offender and enhance the starting point for each offence by 6 months to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. 

Totality

15.Where offences are committed in different premises against different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should be imposed, subject to the totality principle[6].

16.Taking into account all the circumstances of the two burglaries, including the value of the stolen property and that there was no confrontation, I am satisfied that a total sentence of 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment properly reflects the defendant’s criminality on the two charges and takes into account the defendant’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the offences[7].

17.The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 – 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment; and

Charge 2 – 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with 10 months consecutive and 18 months concurrent to charge 1.

The total sentence to be served by the defendant is 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

  (D. J. DUFTON)
  District Judge


[1]  Cap 210. 

[2]  See §8 of the antecedent statement.

[3]  See §§ 1 & 2 of the written mitigation.

[4]  See §3 of the written mitigation.

[5]  See §10 of the antecedent statement.

[6]  See for example Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215.

[7]  See HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching [2011] 5 HKLRD 690 and HKSAR v Chan Li Fat CACC 180/2005.