HKSAR v. Chui Wai Hong

DCCC 620/2021

[2021] HKDC 1655

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 620 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded quilt to a charge of burglary.

Summary of facts

2.The defendant entered a ground floor beverage shop in Queen’s Road Central and stole a cashier machine, HK$3,000, two mobile phones and a food panda device.

3.At the material time, PW1 found the metal shutter gate was opened, of which he locked in the previous night.

4.CCTV captured on 4 March,2021, the defendant entered the shop at 5:21 am and left the shop at 5:23 am with the cash machine.

5.After investigation, the police arrested the defendant on 8 March 2021.  One of the stolen phones (value around $900)  was seized from the defendant’s personal locker at his work place.

6.The shop suffered a net loss of around $4,100.

Criminal record

7.The defendant has 7 previous convictions between 1994 to 2009.  He committed the robbery offence when he was 18 in 1994.  While the other 4 convictions were managing a vice establishment and one count of possession of dangerous drugs.

Mitigation

8.The defendant is 45 years of age.  Single.  At the time of his arrest, he worked as a forklift driver at the container terminal and earned about $25,000 a month.

9.The defendant’s father passed away.  The defendant has to provide financial support to his 65 years old mother who suffers from kidney disease.

10.The defence said that:-

(a)  It is a timely plea.

(b)  The defendant showed genuine remorse.

(c)  There is no aggravating factors as stated in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007.

(d)  The police recovered one of the stole phones. The victim will file insurance claim to recover his lost.

(e)  His last conviction was in 2009 without similar convictions.

(f)  He committed the present offence out of momentary greed.

(g)  The Defence invited this court to consider a lower starting of 27 months as considered in the case of HKSAR v Ko Chun Fung [2019] HKDC 969.

Sentence

11.It is well established that for a non-domestic burglary, the sentencing guideline is one of 30 months starting point.

12.I have heard mitigation on behalf of the defendant and I bear that in mind when I pass sentence on the defendant.

13.I do not consider that there is anything to justify the departure of the usual sentence of 30 months.

14.I therefore adopted a starting point of 30 months, reduced to 20 months after 1/3 discount.