HKSAR v. Cheung Cheuk Hung
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1306/2009 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 5 charges of burglary (Charges 1 – 4 and 6) and 1 charge of going equipped for stealing (Charge 5).
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 4 cases
|
DCCC 1306/2009 & DCCC 3/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 1306 OF 2009 and 3 OF 2010 -----------------
-----------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- Charges 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to 5 charges of burglary (Charges 1 – 4 and 6) and 1 charge of going equipped for stealing (Charge 5). 2.The offences took place on 5 divers dates between 9 July 2009 and 21 October 2009 at 6 divers commercial premises on Hong Kong Island, ranging from Sai Wan to North Point. Facts of Charge 5 – Going equipped for stealing 3.At about 5:30 p.m. on 21 October 2009, the Defendant was arrested by the police (for what later transpired to be Charge 5) upon observation of him acting suspiciously when he entered a commercial building, namely Pacific Plaza, at Nos. 410 – 424, Des Voeux Road West, Sai Wan. He took the escalator from the ground floor to the first floor lobby. The security guard watched him closely. Aware of being watched, he left the building. The police stopped him outside for a search. In his computer bag were found 2 pairs of pliers, 3 screwdrivers,1 pair of gloves, 1 pair of pantyhose, and 2 face masks. 4.Under caution he admitted going there with intent to steal but failed to steal anything. He took the police to his getaway private car, HA 5616, at a carpark opposite to the building. The police found in the car a digital camera with a lens in a camera bag. It transpired to be the stolen property in Charge 2. They also found a pair of pliers. 5.Under further caution he admitted that he went to the commercial building with the burglary equipment with intent to steal. Seeing that the security guard was keeping an eye on him, he left but the police arrested him. He further admitted committing other burglaries. Facts of Charge 1 – Burglary 6.Between 7:00 p.m. on 9 July 2009 and 8:45 a.m. on 10 July 2009 was after office hours of Grandfame Ship Management Limited at Room 2106, 21/F., Yat Chau International Plaza, Nos. 107 – 118, Connaught Road West, Sai Wan. During that time, it was burgled with $800 stolen. 7.The Defendant admitted prizing open the main door of the company with a screwdriver and stole money therefrom. Facts of Charges 2 and 3 – Burglaries 8.It was after office hours at 5:30 p.m. on 12 October 2009 for Passarello & Partners Limited at Room 2309, 23/F., Hong Kong Plaza, Nos. 186 – 191, Connaught Road West, Sai Wan. The company was burgled with $2,644.50 stolen (Charge 3). The stolen property was not recovered. 9.At 7: 30 p.m. on the same day, The Motor Transport Company of Guangdong and Hong Kong Limited at Room 3108, 31/F. of the same building was burgled with a gold ornament monkey, a gold ornament junk, a gold ornament fish, a camera with a lens in the camera bag, and cash $7,500 stolen (Charge 2). The 3 items of gold ornaments were valued at $39,800. 10.Under caution the Defendant admitted trespassing into the two companies with a screwdriver and stole therefrom. The camera with the lens in the camera bag was kept in his getaway private car. The victim identified the camera to be his. Its value was $16,160. The Defendant had sold the 3 items of gold ornaments to a gold shop in Jordon. The police took the Defendant to the gold shop. The shop staff confirmed that the Defendant had sold them to the shop. The victim in Charge 2 suffered a loss of $47,300 (namely $39,800 for the gold ornaments plus $7,500 cash). Facts of Charge 4 – Burglary 11.Between 6:30 p.m. on 19 October 2009 and 8:45 a.m. on 20 October 2009 was after office hours of Queens Hong Kong Ltd at Room 2301 – 2302, 23/F., Qualipak Tower, Nos. 121 – 122 Connaught Road West, Sai Wan. The company was burgled with $2,206 stolen. 12.Under caution the Defendant admitted that he had trespassed into the company with a screwdriver and stolen therefrom. Facts of Charge 6 – Burglary 13.At 6:30 p.m. on 6 August 2009, a staff member left the office after switching off all lights and securing all locks and windows. When she returned on the following day, 7 August 2009, the lights were on with signs of ransacking. A computer valued at $10,000 and a wireless router valued at $2,000 were stolen. 14.The recording function of the CCTV installed in the premises had been stopped by someone after 6:00 p.m. on the previous day, 6 August 2009. The CCTV managed to capture the image of the Defendant outside the company peeping into the inside of the company at 6:00 p.m. on 4 August 2009. The CCTV of the building also captured the image of the Defendant in the lift at 7:23 p.m. on 6 August 2009. 15.The Defendant’s clothing (as at the time of the arrest for Charge 5 on 21 October 2009) was exactly the same as what he wore on 4 and 6 August 2009 as captured by the CCTV. 16.Under caution he admitted that at about 6:00 p.m. on 6 August 2009, he saw someone coming out from the company. The door was not fully closed. He entered the office and took away a computer and a wireless router. Finding that they were of no use to him, he discarded them into the garbage bin of his residence later on the same day. Sentencing principles Sentencing guidelines for burglary 17.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, the Court of Appeal laid down a usual starting point of 2 ½ years for non-domestic premises by a first offender of full age (as per Macdougall JA), as later affirmed in HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing, CACC 450/2000. No sentencing guidelines for going equipped for stealing 18.There are no sentencing guidelines. The facts of each case may vary substantially. The customary sentence is imprisonment. Concurrent and consecutive sentences 19.Where sentencing for two or more closely related offences, the sentencer has to consider totality. The guiding case is HKSAR v Yip Kwok-fai CACC 306/2002. Stuart-Moore V-P said, at para. 13:
Mitigation put forward 20.The Defendant is 40 years of age. He was educated up to F. 1 level. He did various unskilled jobs until early 2009 when he became unemployed. He was put on community service for 3 similar convictions in 2000. He committed the present offences due to his financial plight. He still owes a credit card loan of $10,000. He is the sole breadwinner. His wife is not in good health. His son is 21 years of age and studying in the City University of Hong Kong. Sentencing in present case 21.Based on Wong Man (above), I take a starting point of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for each of the burglaries (Charges 1 – 4 and 6). I give a one-third discount for the pleas of guilty. The sentence is 20 months each. 22.Charge 5 featured a simple set of equipment being carried to a target premises. The Defendant was inspecting the surrounding circumstances in preparation for entry and stealing. I take 12 months as the starting point. I give a one-third discount for the plea of guilty. The sentence is 8 months. 23.Applying the totality principle in Yip Kwok-fai (above), I make the following adjustment:
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 1306/2009