HKSAR v. Wong Chung Hang, Henry

DCCC 1111/2021

[2025] HKDC 303

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1111 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.In the present proceeding, D3 pleaded guilty to charge 2, 5 and 6:

Charge 2 – burglary on 8/2/2021 (against D1 and D3);

Charge 5 – burglary on 23/2/2021 (against D1, D2 and D3);

Charge 6 – failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause (against D3 only).

Summary of facts

Charge 2 – HK$6,000 Stolen Cash

2.PW2 was the manager of a shop located in Tai Po Road, Shum Shui Po.  He locked the gate when he left the shop at about 9:00 p.m. the night before.

3.When he returned to the shop on 8^th February 2021, he found the switch box was pried opened and the shop had been ransacked.  Three cash trays of the cash register containing about HK$6,000 cash was missing.

4.CCTV showed that D1 and another man got out of TL 446 and the other man pried open the switch box controlling the gate.  D1 entered the shop and left with cash trays of the cash register.

5.The CCTV at Kwun Tong playground showed D3 got out of TL 446 and entered the playground after D1 and the other man entered the playground with the cash trays.

Charge 5 – HK$72,000 Stolen Property

6.The person in charge returned to the shop on 23 February, 2021 and found the gate had been pried open, the shop had been ransacked.  Boxes of birds nest and pearl powder were missing.  The total value was HK$72,000.

7.D3 admitted under caution that he drove D1 and the other man to the location of charge 2 and they returned to the car with 2 iron boxes and asked him to drive to Kwun Tong.

8.As to charge 5, he drove D1 and the other person to the location of charge 5.  When they came out from the shop, they have several polystyrene boxes filled with bird’s nest and the alarm of the shop went off.

Charge 6

9.D3 failed to surrender to court on 3^rd July 2024 for a 8 days’ trial.  On the first day, when the Police got in touch with him, he said that he was at home.

10.When the Police arrived, he told the Police that he was on his way to Kowloon Tong Station.

11.When the Police expected to meet him in Kowloon Tong Station, he told them he was on the way to the District Court.

12.D3 failed to pick up the calls when the Police returned to the District Court.

13.He surrendered himself to the Police in August 2024.

Criminal record

14.D3 has a long list of criminal record since 2000 to 2024.  Up to 2020, he has 29 convictions with 8 related to dishonesty and 5 related to causing wasteful employment of Police.

15.He committed the present 2 offences just one month after his release from prison in January 2021.

Mitigation

16.D3 is 41 years old, he is divorced with 2 children (19 and 12 years old respectively).  He used to be a driver earning HK$20,000 per month.

17.He explained the reason for his absence to attend Court in July 2024 for trial was because he wished to earn extra money to support his son’s education. When he was at work, he contributed HK$12,000 for their living expenses.  He also contributed HK$5,000 to support his elderly parents.

18.He knew what he did was wrong.  He has found faith in Christianity and will continue to reform himself after he discharges from prison.

19.His role in the present case was a driver and was given HK$1,800 in charge 2 but nothing in charge 5.  The Defence said that his role was relatively minor.  He committed the present offence to earn quick money.

Sentence

Charge 2 and Charge 5

20.This is a case of non domestic burglary.

21.I disagree with the Defence that his role was minor.  Without his participation in the scheme, it would be difficult for the other defendants to carry the stolen items around.

22.I adopted a starting point of 30 months for charge 2 and 5.

23.As the defence admitted that there are a number of aggravating factors as stated in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai[1]: -

(i)  D3 has a long list of criminal record and committed the present offence shortly after his release from prison.

(ii)  There were more than one defendants in committing the offence in both charges.

(iii)  D3 committed two burglary cases in the same month within a space of 15 days.

24.As such, I consider that a 9 months enhancement to the starting point is appropriate.

25.The sentence for the 2 charges arrive at 39 months (30 + 9).

26.D3 changed his plea after hearing dates have been set in July last year, but he absconded.

27.I assess that the appropriate discount rate is 20%.

28.D3 is sentenced to 31.2 months for each charge.  I round down to 31 months.

Charge 6

29.As to charge 6, D3 surrendered himself in August, 2024, some 2 months after he has absconded, I consider his explanation for being absent for trial in July 2024 was not a reasonable excuse.

30.He also made the Police running around from the District Court to his home, then to Kowloon Tong Station and back to District Court.  It is obvious to me that D3 purposely wasted the manpower of the Police.

31.I adopted a starting point of 4.5 months, reduced to 3 months for his guilty plea.

Totality

32.I order 9 months from charge 5 to run consecutively to the sentence of charge 2, that arrives at 40 months’ imprisonment. (9 + 31).

33.As to charge 6, it is appropriate to order the 3 months to run consecutively to the sentence of charge 2 and 5.

34.The final sentence is 43 months’ imprisonment. (40 + 3)