HKSAR v. Cheuk Chung Sang and Another

DCCC770/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 770 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Both defendants have pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 23 May 2010 in Hong Kong they entered a building called Perfect Match Logistics Company in Maidstone Lane, Hung Hom, and stole therein a substantial quantity of property. The value of the property stolen was in excess of 3.7 million.

3.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendants discloses that a staff of the company secured the premises by roller shutter at 8.30 pm on 22 May, and the premises were secured. At 2.59 am on 23 May a police party were instructed to investigate a burglary case at the premises. When they arrived at the premises they saw near to the premises a vehicle with the registration number NR 5782. The officers intercepted this vehicle and on board that vehicle were the two defendants. D1 was a passenger and D2 was the driver.

4.The vehicle was searched and the property, the subject of the charge, was recovered. The property included 36 boxes of electronic components. Also recovered were two pairs of white gloves, a crowbar 88 centimetres in length, a second crowbar 70 centimetres in length, a piece of bolt cutter 24 inches long, a roll of adhesive tape, a hammer; an adjustable spanner, a clamp and a chisel.

5.On further investigation the officers discovered that the registration plates, NR 5782, in fact covered another pair of registration plates MH 2475. Those were the genuine registration plates.

6.The defendants were arrested. The 1st defendant admitted to the officer that he was helping his friend D2 to move the exhibits on board the vehicle for the purpose of smuggling. The 2nd defendant said that he was helping a friend called “Dai Fai” to transport the exhibits to Tuen Mun for the purpose of smuggling.

7.Both defendants have clear records. In the case of the 1st defendant, I am told he is 45 years of age. He was educated to primary 6 level. He did various unsecured job or jobs. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. However, his wife has now become a waitress at a restaurant. He has a son aged 15 and a daughter aged 11 who are both at school. When at work he provided for his family, wife and children. He is remorseful for the offences. He is extremely co-operative with the police and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He expressed his remorse and his intention to turn over a new leaf in the future.

8.I am told that the reason he committed the offence was because of financial problems. He was employed on a casual basis as a construction worker earning some $13,000 per month. At the time of the offence he had been out of work for 3 months and it was in those circumstances he resorted to the offence.

9.As regards the 2nd defendant, I am told that he is 43 years of age, educated up to Form 5. He is divorced, lives with his aged parents to whom he pays $1,000 a month and he pays two to three thousand dollars a month to his ex-wife and two children who are aged 16 and 6. I am told that his ex-wife suffers from asthma and cannot work. I am also advised that his younger son needs medical treatment including physiotherapy. I am told that he is regretful for his involvement in these offences. He was a casual worker in a recycling company.

10.A number of letters of mitigation were placed before the court from his family. It is clear that he has been very supportive of his family and his parents refer to him as a dutiful son. I am told also that he is an active member of a charitable organization which distributes food to old people.

11.As the defendants are clearly aware, burglary is a very serious offence. A normal starting point for the burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment. However, in this case, the amount of property involved is very substantial, in excess of 3.7 million. The offence was committed in the middle of the night. The roller shutter door was forced open and the defendants were equipped with gloves and other equipment in order to effect their entrance to the premises.

12.I accept that the defendants were not the masterminds of this offence and were clearly involved with others. But they have obviously part of an organization and considerable planning was involved. The goods were to be taken to a place from which they would be smuggled out of Hong Kong. I am told that the defendant did not play a substantial role in the organisation. However, the role played by the defendants was a vital role. People who align themselves with serious professional criminals cannot expect lenient treatment from the courts.

13.I have decided that in this case a starting point 3 years and 3 months is appropriate. The defendants are entitled to credit for their guilty pleas and the sentence will be reduced by one-third. Each of the defendants will go to prison for 2 years and 2 months.