HKSAR v. Chan Kong Yiu

DCCC906/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.906 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant faces one charge of Burglary contrary to s.11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. Particulars of the charge allege that the defendant on a day between 9^th and 10^th January 2003 having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Kwong Fat Hong Securities, 23^rd floor, Kwong Fat Hong Building, No.1 Rumsey Street, Sheung Wan, stole therein 6 gold coins.

2.The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted to the facts and was duly convicted.  The defendant is also the 1^st defendant in another case involving 4 defendants (DCCC5002010) and he had requested this case to be brought up and dealt with together.

Facts

3.9 commercial units in Kwong Fai Hong Building at no.1 Rumsey Street were burgled between 11pm 8^th January and 5am 9^th January 2003. Shutters of the burgled premises were found to have been prized broken. All the premises had been ransacked. Watches, cameras, gold coins and cash were stolen from the building.

4.Upon investigation, it was revealed that the culprits had entered the building by prizing open the rear metal grille of the building at the ground floor with an unknown object. The culprits then broke open the metal shutters, entered and ransacked the premises. It was suspected that a hand saw had been used to cut the hinges of a safe at Kwong Fat Securities on the 23^rd floor.

5.The security guard of the building had locked the main door of the building on 9^th January. When he conducted a patrol at about 5am on 10^th January, he found the glass door of 16^th floor left ajar. He made a report to the Police.

6.DNA materials were found in a premises on the 16^th floor and 23^rd floor. Investigation confirmed that the materials matched the DNA of one Lee Kiu Man and the defendant.

7.The secretary of Kwong Fat Hong remembered leaving the premises unattended at 7pm on 9^th January. When she returned the following morning, she found the premises ransacked. The door of the bigger safe had been prized open. 6 gold coins with a total value of HK$6,000 were found missing. Prizing marks were found on the 2 safes but the other one had not been opened.

Previous convictions

8.The defendant has 6 previous convictions, all were for burglary. The last one was in 1997 when he was sentenced to 20 month’s imprisonment.

Mitigation

9.The defendant is 53, he had worked as a tailor. He is married with 2 daughters, his wife being the original D2 in DCCC500/2010. D1’s father is 85, mother 84, both living in china. D1 last conviction was in 1997 for burglary. It was submitted that the defendant had been out of trouble for 13 years.

Sentencing Guidelines

10.The proper starting point in a case of burglary of non-domestic premises in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment: R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80 and Secretary for Justice v Tsang Hon-yin AR 5/2004.

Sentence

11.I have heard from counsel for the defendant and there are no further mitigating or aggravating factors to allow me to depart from the guidelines. I will therefore adopt a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, reducing it by one-third to 20 months’ imprisonment.

12.The present offence took place in 2003, which is some 6 years before the offences in DCCC500/2010. There are no reasons for the sentences not to be served wholly consecutively and I will so order.