HKSAR v. Choy Chi Chuen

DCCC501/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 501 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.You pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you. The brief facts were as follows. A shop at No.7-8, Ground Floor, Hang Lung Mansion, 44-46 Dundas Street, Yau Ma Tei, was under renovation. At about 6.30 pm on 18 April PW1 who was responsible for the renovations locked the rear entrance before leaving the shop. The roller gate at the front entrance was half-closed and PW1 locked the wooden board enclosing the front entrance with a padlock. At around 1.46 am on 19 April a security guard in the CCTV surveillance camera spotted a male near the rear entrance acting furtively. Near the male were placed four cartons. He went to investigate.

3.Upon arrival, he found the four cartons placed on the floor and the wooden board at the front half-opened with the padlock on the floor. Therefore, he called the police. The police arrived and an officer viewed the CCTV footage and searched the area.

4.At 4.39 am they came across you in Nathan Road. You were similar to the male appeared on the CCTV. You were arrested and cautioned, and you replied, “Ah sir, give me a chance. I could not burgle anything.” Later on in a formal interview under caution you claimed to have met a friend Ah Dee on Dundas Street who asked you to help him burgle a shop. Ah Dee said he would open the rear entrance and asked you to pick up electric cables from the rear staircase. You would both share the proceeds. You claimed that when you arrived at the premises, that is the shop, the cartons were already outside. You intended to wait for Ah Dee but hearing a noise you fled. You said you had no way of contacting Ah Dee.

5.Four cartons of electric cables were recovered from the rear alley. They were the property of the shop and had been stored on the upper floor. They were valued $4,400.

6.You admitted to eight previous convictions, four of which involved dishonesty. The other four, if I remember correctly, involved drugs.

7.On your behalf Mr So entered mitigation, very realistically, acknowledged that there was very little he could say by way of mitigation. He stressed your plea of guilty and the consequent saving of court time. Also he stressed that the plea of guilty indicated a level of remorseful. I was told about your family circumstances and an industrial injury that you suffered. I was told that this offence arose out of your dire financial difficulties. Two letters were produced before me and I have taken those into consideration.

8.I note also that all goods were recovered. In sentencing you I could see no reason to depart from the usual tariff for burglary of non-domestic premises. In this case there are no particular mitigating features nor are there any particular aggravating features.

9.Stand up, please. In all the circumstances, I take a starting point of 30 months, reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty. You will go to prison for 20 months.