HKSAR v. Chun Wai Chun
|
DCCC22/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2009 ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Deputy District Judge Mierczak Date: 17 February 2009 at 10.44 am
Offence: Burglary, etc. (入屋犯法等罪項)
Transcript of the Audio Recording
1. Stand up, defendant. The defendant pleads guilty before me today to two charges. One is the burglary of domestic premises and one is remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully here. He has pleaded guilty to both matters. 2. Shortly the facts are that he was apprehended when he and two other persons were at Shek Lung Kung, Tai Mo Shan, on a hillside. He had there been apprehended after a chase and admitted that he had sneaked into Hong Kong. He also admitted that earlier that day his two friends had entered the burgled premises and he said he remained outside the villa acting as a lookout whilst they burgled it. He said they had disposed of the stolen properties at the seashore. 3. As I say, the defendant has admitted those facts and I have convicted him on his plea of guilty. 4. I am told he has a clear record in Hong Kong. Mitigation has followed where I am told inter alia to take into account the fact he has pleaded guilty, has a clear record and made frank admissions and co-operated with the police, so much so that he took them back to the burgled villa. He had lived with his parents in Mainland China and eventually had gone to Shenzhen and managed to secure a job as a security guard on 1,400 RMB per month. It was because he had lost that job last year that he sneaked into Hong Kong. As he frankly admitted, he wanted to look for employment. He had no money and that led to the commission of the offence. 5. The offence of burglary of domestic premises, the higher courts have said, attracts a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. That starting point can be increased if there are elements of aggravation present. Here there are not. The defendant here acted as a lookout but that is just as serious as committing the burglary itself. He was an integral part of this enterprise. 6. Therefore, with respect to the first matter, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant will get the full discount for his plea of guilty and accordingly he will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment on that matter. 7. Dealing with the second matter, the higher courts have said that 15 months’ imprisonment after a plea of guilty is the appropriate sentence for illegally remaining here. There is nothing put to me that would cause me to reduce that. Accordingly, with respect to the second matter he will be convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. The defendant came here illegally and committed a crime. It was a serious offence of burglary. To my mind they are separate and distinct matters. Therefore, the second sentence will be consecutive to the first sentence. The message must be that persons cannot come here illegally, and not only that, then commit crimes. Accordingly, the head sentence will be 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
|