HKSAR v. Li Hong Ying

DCCC494/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 494 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary.

2.The facts show that the defendant was a friend of PW1 in the case and PW1 had lost his keys, but he could not remember when. PW1, Mr Lee, lives in the flat with his daughter.  On 23 March 2010 Miss Lee had left the flat and had locked both the iron gate and the wooden door.  Less than an hour later, she returned home and when she entered her bedroom, she saw the defendant kneeling next to a wardrobe wearing a pair of white gloves and carrying a black bag.  The lowest drawer of the wardrobe was opened and Miss Lee then reported the matter to the police.

3.After the police arrived, an envelope containing US$685, ten red packets containing a total of HK$680, two keys and a pair of white gloves were seized from the defendant.  Miss Lee identified the cash as being her property.  The keys seized from the defendant were keys that could be used to open the door and iron gate of the flat. 

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that when Mr Lee dropped his two keys, she picked them up and made duplicate keys for herself.  She later found out where Mr Lee lived and she used the two keys, the two duplicate keys to enter his flat.  She admitted she committed the offence out of greed.

5.Defendant’s fingerprints were lifted from the handle of the iron gate inside the flat. 

6.The defendant is aged 37 and has a clear record.  She had a previous conviction of breach of condition of stay but that conviction in 2005 is already considered to be a spent conviction.

7.The defendant has had a complicated marital history in that she married in China in 1997 and divorced her husband in 1999. She, I am told, has 3 daughters, aged 7, 9 and 5.  The two elder daughters have been living in China whilst the youngest daughter lives in Hong Kong with the defendant’s mother.  Defendant married a Mr Lam in Hong Kong in September 2007.  He is a construction site worker earning about $5,000 a month and apparently gave the defendant $2,000 a month.

8.The defendant committed this offence out of greed, but I do not accept it was momentary greed because she went to the premises, armed with gloves, and she had also stolen the keys to make duplicate, so there was some planning involved in this burglary.

9.The only mitigating factor that can be considered in this offence is that the defendant has pleaded guilty.  Also to be considered is that the defendant has a clear record.

10.I have asked the assistance of the Department of Justice through the police to inform Social Welfare Department to see if they can in any way give assistance to the defendant’s youngest daughter who remains in Hong Kong.

11.The defendant’s eldest daughter has also written a letter pleading for leniency for her mother.  The defendant should be ashamed of herself because she has given a very bad example to her daughters despite many support that she has been given by her family.

12.As has been correctly pointed out by Mr Ng, the Court of Appeal has viewed and does view this offence as being a very serious one.  And the guideline is that for burglary of domestic premises, 3 years’ starting point is the norm.  I see no special circumstances to depart from that guideline, so I sentence the defendant, for this offence, a starting point of 3 years.  Because of her plea, she deserves one-third off, so she is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.