HKSAR v. Li Ka Fai

Case No.DCCC 1060/2022[2023] HKDC 847

Court

District Court

Date20 Jun 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCC 1060/2022

[2023] HKDC 847

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1060 OF 2022

________________________

	HKSAR
	v
	LI KA FAI	Defendant

________________________

Before:

Deputy District Judge M Chow in Court

Date:

20 June 2023

Present:	Mr Derrick C K Lee, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions
	Mr John H S Ng of S H Chan & Co assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offence:

Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The shop was “Subway” (“Shop”), located at Shop No. H1, 1^st Floor, Central Pier No. 7, Central.

Summary of facts

2.At around 9:48 pm on 27 July 2022, the staff of Subway locked the cash register and the 2 entrances of the shop before he left the Shop

3.Next morning, the owner (PW1) of the Shop was informed that the Shop had been burgled.

4.From the CCTV, PW1 could see that at around 11:45 pm on 27 July 2022, the D pulled open one of the entrances’ door and stole $1000 cash which was placed on a table behind the cash register and prized open the cash register and stole some money from it. The total amount of cash being stolen was $5,720.

5.The police identified the male in the CCTV to be the same D who burgled the Shop in 2019 in the same location.

6.The D was arrested and admitted stealing money from the shop. He spent $3,000 on prostitution service and gave her $500 to top up her Octopus card.

Criminal record

7.The D has a long list of criminal records from 1990 to 2020. There were 33 court appearances with 57 convictions, out of which, 33 convictions related to theft ordinance offences, 12 of them were burglary offences.

8.His last case in 2020 was 5 charges of burglary and one charge of theft.

9.He was sentenced to a period of 44 months’ imprisonment and was released from prison in April, 2022.

Mitigation

10.The D is now 48 years old and lived alone in a public housing unit in Mui Wo, Lantau.

11.He relied on CSSA $6,500 per month since 2014.

12.In 2012, the D was diagnosed to have suffered from mental illness and he needs to attend follow up sessions regularly.

Sentence

13.This is a case of non-domestic burglary. The usual sentence is 2 ½ years.

14.The defence informed me this morning he would withdrew the mitigation point that the D was an opportunistic burglar.

15.Had the defence insisted on this point, I would disagree to it for the reasons that:-

a. he lived in Mui Wo, Lantau. It was close to mid-night at the time of burglary. There was simply no people around in Central. He has no business in Central at that time.

b. he has a number of burglary convictions.

c. the defence cannot dispute that he is a habitual, regular and professional burglar.

d. he purposely went to the Shop with one and only one intention to burgle as he knew that the shop’s cash registry would normally keep some cash in it.

16.In the present case, there are other factors need to be considered to enhance the starting point as he:-

(a)  committed the same offence 4 months after his discharge from prison.

(b)  he has a long list of criminal records.

(c)  he went back to the same shop to commit the same offence.

17.It is clear to me that the past sentences served no deterrent effect upon him.

18.As such, the starting point should be adjusted upward for 9 months to bring home a message to the D that each time when he commits an offence, the sentence is going to be enhanced. He cannot expect lenient sentence from the Court.

19.The total sentence for the present charge is 39 months. Given a 1/3 discount, the sentence is reduced to 26 months.

	( M Chow )
	Deputy District Judge