HKSAR v. Sum Chi Sing, Mickey

DCCC937/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 937 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary.

2.On 8 May this year the defendant entered Room B of the victim premises. A TV set valued at approximately $13,800-odd was stolen. The defendant obviously entered through a window. The burglary took place during the day and no one was at home at that time. There were four rooms in the victim premises that were available for rent and it was PW1 that lived in Room B.

3.The 2nd charge of burglary was committed on 26 June, nearly two months later. The defendant again chanced his luck and entered the same premises but a different room. He was observed acting suspiciously by vigilant, sharp-eyed police officers. The defendant was ultimately captured and arrested inside Room C.

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted both offences and fully co-operated with the police.

5.I agree with defence counsel that the defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.

6.I have heard the defendant’s background, read the antecedent statement and I am aware of his previous convictions. His previous convictions include two similar convictions for burglary in 1995 and 2005.

7.It has been explained to me why the defendant was desperate and in financial distress leading to the commission of these two burglaries.

8.I have considered the facts of the case and find no aggravating factors here.

9.For offences of burglaries where domestic premises are concerned, the guidelines are well established. A domestic premises burglary will attract a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. Accordingly, I will take 3 years’ starting point for both charges.

10.The defendant will benefit from a discount of 1 year for his plea today. I have considered the totality principle and the fact that there are two similar charges committed some time apart.

11.Defendant, please stand up. For Charge 1, I impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, I impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment of which 3 months will run consecutively to Charge 1, the balance to run concurrently. That will mean a total sentence of 2 years and 3 months. Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Understand.