HKSAR v. Wong Man Kei

DCCC137/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 137 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 13 September 2009, together with another unknown person, he entered the 1st Floor of a construction site at the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education in Tseung Kwan O and stole 150 fluorescent tubes and 150 electric switches.

3.The value of the property stolen is $18,000 and none of it has been recovered.

4.The site from which the property was stolen was enclosed by a wire fence. There was a building under construction and there were two storerooms on the 1st Floor of the building, Storeroom A and Storeroom B. The stolen property was stored inside Storeroom A.

5.The night before the burglary, at 6 pm on Saturday 12 September, the site foreman (PW1) had secured Storerooms A and B by padlocks before leaving. At 5.22pm the following night, on the Sunday, an officer spotted the defendant acting furtively around the site and he saw the defendant keep on looking into the site.

6.The defendant then entered the site through the broken wire perimeter fence and was seen standing outside Storeroom A. He was carrying a rucksack and wearing a pair of gloves. He was arrested and cautioned by the officer and he told the officer that he had gone to the site that morning at 7 o’clock with a man he referred to as “Dei Chung Hoi”. He explained that they had gone there to commit this burglary but he was to act only as a lookout.

7.He said his friend Dei broke the chain which was used to secure the padlock of the Storeroom A, entered the storeroom and stole the fluorescent tubes and electric switches. They then prised open the padlock of Storeroom B, but nothing seems to have been stolen from there. His explanation for returning to the site later that evening was that he had gone there to see if there was any CCTV recording on the site.

8.The officers contacted PW1 and he returned to the site at about 6.30 on 13 September. He pointed out to the officers that the door of Storeroom A was opened and the padlock had been prised open. The fluorescent tubes and switches that were stored inside Storeroom A had been stolen. There was nothing stolen from the other storeroom.

9.The defendant has a number of previous convictions. His criminal career goes back to 1981 and he has appeared before the courts on 16 previous occasions. Eight of those offences were for theft, two for attempted theft and one of burglary. In 2003, for burglary, he was sent to prison for 20 months. His last court appearance was in June 2009 for theft, when he was sent to prison for 8 months. That is more than four years before the commission of this offence.

10.I am told that the defendant is aged 48 years and was educated to primary school level. He has worked as a construction site worker. He is married. His wife is 38 years of age and he has an 11-year old daughter. They had lived on the mainland but they came to Hong Kong in July of 2009, just a few months before this burglary offence was committed.

11.I am told that the reason for many of his previous offences was because of the need to secure further finance for his domestic situation. Because his daughter had not been born in an officially recognised marriage she had no residence status on the mainland, and so school fees had to be paid for. I am told his latest criminal offences have all come about at times when he was in financial problems and met people whom he had known in prison who had persuaded him to go along with their criminal enterprises.

12.I am told that more recently he was in more regular employment on construction sites and earning some $450 per day. I am told that prior to his family coming to Hong Kong he lived in caged accommodation but came to the view that that was clearly unsuitable for his family. When they came to Hong Kong in July he had to rent a room. This cost him $2,500 per month. Household effects had to be purchased and this drained his modest savings.

13.I am told that before the commission of this offence he met the wanted person, Dei, who said that he was earning decent money and promised him some quick money. He persuaded the defendant to join him in this criminal enterprise and explained that he would simply act as a lookout and would get some money for acting in that capacity.

14.I was told that they had gone to the site by public transport and that the person with the defendant, Dei, had a large bag in which he put the stolen property and they left again on public transport. The defendant had returned to the site simply to check the position as regards any CCTV recorders that there might be.

15.I am told that his family are supportive of the defendant. Neither his wife or daughter was in court at the hearing but it was explained that the wife had recently secured employment as a clerk and she was on probation, earning some $6,000 per month. His daughter is at school.

16.A letter has been placed before the court from the defendant’s wife. She said that she came to Hong Kong on 13 July and the defendant was arrested some 2 months later. She said that prior to this the defendant had been out of trouble for 4 years and that he was remorseful for his involvement in this matter, that whilst on bail for these matters he had got employment and in November of last year he came across a wallet in Wanchai and handed it in at the Wanchai Police Station. She says the defendant has worked hard to support his family and believed he would be a good citizen and stay out of trouble when he came out of prison.

17.There was also a letter placed before the court from the defendant’s daughter. She said that she wasn’t aware of what her father had done wrong but she was aware that he was away from home for a month and that she missed him. She said her father did not have much culture but after work he would play chess and cards with her, even though he was very tired from his work on the construction sites, and she has very fond memories of these happy times spent together.

18.The offence is a non-domestic burglary. The usual sentence for a non-domestic burglary is 2½ years’ imprisonment. This was not an opportunistic theft. It involved preparation in terms of taking the necessary equipment to break the padlocks open and to take away the property from inside.

19.The defendant has not had a clear record and he has been convicted of a similar offence in 2003. But as has been pointed out, he has managed to stay out of trouble since 2005.

20.I have decided in all the circumstances that the court need not depart from the usual starting point for a non-domestic burglary, so I impose a starting point of 2½ years and reduce that by one-third to 20 months to reflect the guilty plea.

21.The defendant had entered a not guilty plea to a 2nd charge of attempted burglary and the prosecution invited the court to allow that charge to remain on the file should the defendant plead guilty and admit the facts of the 1st charge. The defendant has done that, so I will order that the 2nd charge remain on the court file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court.