HKSAR v. Wong Chi Fu

DCCC383/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 383 OF 2009

--------------------

--------------------

------------------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

------------------------------------

1.The defendant was caught red-handed while he was committing the offence, the subject of the 9th charge on 26 February this year.  He was spotted on the CCTV leaving the Industrial Centre carrying two bags; he was intercepted and searched and the stolen property was found in the bags he was carrying, as also various amounts of cash in his pockets.  He was arrested and under caution he admitted that he had burgled the unit; in subsequent interviews he admitted having committed all the other charges as well, including details as to how he had carried them out.

2.The defendant is 55 years of age.  He has a poor record including seven previous convictions for burglary, one for attempted burglary, two for going equipped for stealing and one for handling stolen goods, though at the same time, I do take Mr Mui’s point that the first four items in the record go back to 1992, so they are already about 17 years old at this point in time. 

3.The premises which were targeted by the defendant were in nearly every case industrial buildings or industrial centres.  All of the offences involved the defendant gaining forced entry into the premises in question by way of prising the roller shutters, prising drawers and damaging locks; these could not be described as petty thefts.  The defendant was clearly targeting high value items of property as can be seen by looking at the helpful schedule prepared by Mr Mui.  The property stolen included, for example, four notebook computers and some substantial amounts of cash from the different premises in various foreign currencies including US dollars, Singapore dollars, Renminbi, Euro. 

4.The only property which has been recovered from all these offences is the items which were found on the defendant when he was arrested.  The remainder of the stolen property was all sold by him, and the cash amounts used by him to fund his gambling habit.  I accept that the defendant had developed something akin to an addiction to gambling and it was to fund that habit primarily that he committed these offences.  He is not now in any position to pay compensation.

5.The well-established starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment after trial and I can see no reason at all for departing from those guidelines.  On the 1st charge, I do adopt a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment after trial and for the defendant’s plea of guilty and co-operation which I accept he has given to the police, in respect of all the charges he is entitled to the one-third discount which discounts the starting point to 20 months’ imprisonment and that is the sentence I impose on the 1st charge.

6.I adopt the same starting point and afford the same one-third discount on each of the remaining five charges, and sentence the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment on each charge. 

7.The most important question to decide in a situation such as the present one is the matter of totality, in order to arrive at a sentence which fairly reflects the criminality involved in the defendant’s repeated commission of these six discrete burglary offences, which were committed over a period of 15 months. 

8.I have concluded that a fair approach would be on each of the remaining five charges to order that a period of 6 months’ imprisonment is to be consecutive and the remaining 14 months’ imprisonment concurrent.  The sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment on the 1st charge and 6 months consecutive on each of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th and 9th charges, adds up to a total of 50 months’ imprisonment. 

9.A further matter that Mr Mui has raised in mitigation is that he submits that if it had not been for the defendant’s ready admissions to the police that the images shown in the CCTV films from the various premises involved it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to prove some or all of those earlier offences.  I have viewed the still images taken from the various CCTV films and it is not a matter which I find possible to rule definitively on to what extent the images captured did or did not closely resemble the defendant.  The fact is that the defendant was caught red-handed committing the offence in February this year in the industrial centre and that naturally immediately raised the police’s suspicion that he had committed the earlier offences in the other various industrial centres, which showed a similar modus operandi. 

10.However, I shall give the defendant some credit on this ground following the decision in HKSAR v Ng Wing Chung CACC 176 of 2002 in which the Court of Appeal held that some credit must  be given to a defendant where he has made confessions to the police after his arrest for offences which would not otherwise have been brought home against him, and I shall afford a further discount of 4 months’ imprisonment overall on this ground.  That makes for an overall total of 46 months’ imprisonment.

11.I accept that the defendant is suffering from a duodenal ulcer but this does not call for any further discount.  He is being treated and given the necessary medication by the Correctional Services Authorities.  I accept that he is remorseful and I sincerely hope that he is genuinely determined to turn over a new leaf. 

12.So the total sentence I impose on all the six charges is 46 months’ imprisonment.