HKSAR v. Yau Kwai on

DCCC 60/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 60 OF 2010

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

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

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.

2.The defendant entered the same restaurant in Tai Po after the restaurant was closed for business on two separate occasions within a week between the months of September and October in 2009. On the first occasion he stole cash HK$6,000 and on the second occasion he stole cash HK$1,300. During the first burglary he left behind his fingerprints on a plastic folder in the drawer of the cashier counter.

3.The sentencing tariff for a single charge of burglary of non-domestic premises is generally a term of 2 ½ years imprisonment. (see Li Ming CACC-480/1985, Lau Siu Kwong CACC-628/87 and Chan Tsz Lung CAAR-4/1998. The same approach was adopted and utilized in more current cases such as Cheng Wai Kai CACC-338/2007, Ng Ngai Shan  CACC-197/2008 and Tam Chi Choi (譚志才) CACC-381/2008 of 23 July 2009).

4.The defendant, 27 years of age, is married. His parents were deceased. His wife and 2 children, aged 7 and 9, live in the mainland. He worked as a part-time worker in a Japanese restaurant in Hong Kong until July 2009, earning about HK$6000 per month. He has a younger sister and a younger brother. His younger brother is slightly mentally retarded. His sister is married and is not in touch with the defendant.  When the defendant remained in Hong Kong he resided with his younger brother in Tai Po. The restaurant in question is situated close in proximity to where the defendant and his younger brother reside.

5.Prior to the burglary incidents the defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong. In November last year he got drunk and damaged some government properties in a public toilet. As a result of his arrest for the damage done to the public toilet, his involvements in the 2 burglaries were detected upon fingerprint comparison. The defendant confessed his guilt to the police upon his arrest. He also indicted his intention to plead guilty to both charges when he first appeared in the District Court for plea. The strongest mitigating factor for the defendant is his plea of guilty indicating his remorse.

6.I adopt the conventional tariff of 2 ½ years for sentence of each of his 2 burglary charges. Giving him credit for his plea, I reduce his sentence by 1/3 and impose a term of 20 months for each of his two offences. In the cases of LUI Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 and Ng Ngai Shan CACC-197/2008 the Court of Appeal indicated it would be wrong in principle to impose totally concurrent sentences for separate offences committed at different time intervals. I order 18 months of the term for his 2^nd burglary to be served concurrently with the term of his 1^st offence; leaving the balance of 2 months to be served consecutively. The total duration is therefore a period of 1 year and 10 months for his 2 burglary convictions.