HKSAR v. Chan Chi To

DCCC 1294/2023

[2024] HKDC 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1294 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary (Charge 2), Charge 1 is now ordered to be left in Court’s file and is not allowed to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court.

Summary of facts

2.On 14 February 2022, the hostel owner (PW1)  found the $15,000 cash and one credit card inside the safe were missing.  The safe was placed inside the manager room of the hostel.

3.The CCTV footage showed that between 0515 hours and 0518 hours on 14 February 2022, the Defendant together with two other unknown males entered the manager room with force by using an unknown object.

4.On 25 February 2022, the Defendant was intercepted in Jordon and he was arrested for Charge 2 burglary.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that he did go inside the hostel with someone.

Criminal Records

5.Since 2013 to 2017, the Defendant has 10 conviction records:-

(a)  6 convictions related to theft offences;

(b)  2 convictions of obtaining property by deception;

(c)  1 conviction of possession of dangerous drugs;

(d)  1 conviction of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment in 2017.

6.Thereafter the present offence, the Defendant committed further offences of blackmail, theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in October 2022.

Background / mitigation

7.The Defendant is now 34 years of age.  He is a divorcee with a teenage daughter.

8.I understand from the letter of Christian Prison Pastoral Association Limited that the defendant has found faith in religion and the church has provided enormous support to the Defendant to turn over a new leaf.

9.The Defendant has a job as a decoration worker with a monthly salary of about $30,000, from which he can contribute part of his earning to support the living of his grandparents and his daughter.

10.The defence said that the risk of the defendant to commit further offences is low and urged this Court not to enhance the starting point even though there are aggravating factors.

Sentence

11.For an offence of burglary of commercial premises, the starting point is 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for a person of clear record.

12.As stated in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338-339/2007 and HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830 that there are indeed a number of aggravating factors in the present case , as such I am not persuaded by the defence that I should ignore all these aggravating factors and not to enhance the starting point, those aggravating factors are :-

(a)  The Defendant was acting in concert with two others to burgle the premises.

(b)  The manager room, which was locked, was entered by force, by using an unknown object.

(c)  The Defendant has a number of previous convictions including six convictions of theft offences.

13.As such, I enhance the starting point by 9 months.  That arrives at 39 months.  ( 30 + 9 )   The Defendant is entitled to 1/3 discount, the starting point comes down to 26 months, that is 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

14.The Defendant is ordered to serve a sentence for a period of 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.