HKSAR v. Chu Tak Heung

DCCC809/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 809 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at a restaurant in Hoi Yuen Road in Kwun Tong, Kowloon.

2.In the early hours of the morning of 4 June 2010, he entered the restaurant and stole 12 bags of rice which were valued at $3,480.  The premises concerned were left on the night of 3 June at 11.30 without the door to the kitchen being locked.  In the following morning it was discovered that the premises had been burgled.

3.CCTV showed that the defendant had entered the premises at 6.41 am on the morning of 4 June.  The defendant had gone to the premises previously.  He was a delivery worker and he went there with his van on the day in question and he used his own Octopus to access the car park of the premises.

4.The registration number of the van was captured on CCTV.  The owner was located and it was discovered that the defendant was the driver.

5.He admitted committing the offence and said he sold the rice for $1,680.  

6.The defendant is 52 years of age.  He has a clear record.  He was educated to Form 3 standard in Hong Kong and has worked as a delivery worker and driver of a goods vehicle earning $9,500 per month.  He is a married man.  His wife is 45 and she is a housewife.  He has a daughter aged 13 at secondary school and a son aged 8 at primary school.  He is the only breadwinner of the family and therefore bears a very heavy financial burden. He works long hours and on the day in question he started work and made deliveries in the area.  He recalled that the doors to these premises were left unlocked.

7.As counsel has rightly pointed out, the defendant is not a professional burglar, he used his own Octopus to access the car park of the premises.  No tools were used.  There was no damage caused.  He was co-operative with the police.  Although he stole the bags of rice, there was no other theft of any other property from the premises.  There was no money stolen from the till.  The defendant has been co-operative throughout with the police. 

8.As counsel has pointed out, the courts take a serious view of burglary.  The normal starting point for a non-residential burglary is 2½ years’ imprisonment. 

9.I have taken into account all that has been urged upon me in mitigation.  The inevitable imprisonment of the defendant will be very hard on his family and it is very sad that a hard-working, family man of his age has committed a criminal offence.  I decided to take a starting point of 2 years for this offence and reduced it by one-third to reflect the guilty plea, the sentence therefore will be 16 months’ imprisonment.