HKSAR v. Kwan Sai Kit

DCCC 318/2022

[2023] HKDC 1529

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 318 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant is convicted of a charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, after trial.

Facts

2.Facts of the case has been set out in the verdict. It was a case of burglary of a warehouse in Tsim Sha Tsui involving stolen property of value around HK$10,800. The defendant committed the offence together with two others.

Criminal Record

3.The defendant has 2 previous criminal convictions involving gambling offences.

Mitigation

4.The defendant was born in Hong Kong. He was educated up to Form 5 level. He is single. He used to operate a grocery store selling electrical supplies and telephone accessories until January 2022. Since August this year, he worked as a chef earning HK$20,000 per month.

5.Defence counsel conceded that there is a sentencing starting point set for burglary of non-domestic premises. He also submitted that the value of stolen property is low, and that the defendant, although with previous conviction on gambling offences, should be treated as a man of clear record in sentencing.

Discussion

6.Before sentencing, this court has carefully considered all that was said on behalf of the defendant.

7.It is well established that the appropriate sentencing starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises in the absence of aggravating or extremely strong mitigating factor is that of 2½ years’ imprisonment. (HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing, CACC 450/2000)

8.The defendant here acted together with two others. This amounts to an aggravating feature in sentencing and the starting point should be enhanced. But this court notes there is an absence of sophistication in the commission of the offence and the value of the stolen goods involved is modest. In those circumstances, the court is not going to enhance the sentencing starting point.

9.This court is also willing to treat the defendant as if he is a first offender. The sentencing starting point therefore remains at 2½ years’ imprisonment.

10.There is no strong valid mitigating factor in this case. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.