HKSAR v. Wong Chi Keung

DCCC1262/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1262 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.You have admitted the brief facts and I have convicted you.

3.The facts are as follows.  PW1 was the owner of the Good Luck Restaurant at Shop Nos. 26-30, Ground Floor, 26-30 Yan Oi Street, San Po Kong, which is Restaurant 1, and also at No. 32, which is Restaurant 2. Restaurant 2 is closed on Sunday, however, the door is left unlocked as staff use the kitchen. 

4.PW2 and PW3 were members of staff of Restaurant 1.  On Sunday, 3 October last, they were working in Restaurant 1.  At about 1300 hours, PW3 left to deliver a takeaway.  When she passed Restaurant 2 she saw you kneeling at the cashier desk, searching.  You were conspicuous in that you were not wearing the company uniform.

5.She went back to Restaurant 1 and alerted PW2. They returned together to Restaurant 2, where they saw you standing at the door and using your clothes to cover your hand as you tried to pull the door handle.  You shouted to them to open the door for you.  PW2 opened the door and asked you what you were doing.  You said you were looking for a friend.  You then fled.  The police were called. 

6.PW4 and other officers arrived and searched the area.  At about 1325 hours PW3 identified you outside No. 52 Yan Oi Street. PW4 arrested and cautioned you.

7.You admitted that you walked by Restaurant 2, and seeing no one to be inside, you entered and searched the drawers at the cashier counter for money.  You left empty-handed.

8.PW1, the owner of the restaurants, found all three drawers at the cashier desk to be opened.  One had been locked and had been prised.  The repair was about $500.

9.You had been captured on CCTV.

10.You admitted to 40 previous convictions on 28 occasions.  There were numerous convictions involving dishonesty but only one involving actual burglary.

11.On your behalf Mr Shin entered mitigation.  He told me that you are 43 years of age, married but with no children.  You are a long-term unemployed person who occasionally finds work, that is casual work. Your wife resides in the Mainland and you live with your mother.  You were educated only to Primary 6, and your left hand is disabled, hence you find it very difficult to find work.

12.Whilst acknowledging your poor record, Mr Shin pointed out that there was only one previous for the offence of burglary and that was some 22 years ago.

13.Referring to the present offence, he said it was unplanned.  You were passing the door, you saw the door to be open and no one in the premises, so you entered to look for money.  Nothing was actually taken.  After arrest and caution you were entirely co-operative with the police.  I accept that.

14.I turn now to the sentence.

15.It has to be said you do have an appalling criminal record, especially involving crimes of dishonesty.  However, there is only one previous for burglary. 

16.In respect of the offence itself, there are no special features, neither of a mitigating character nor of an aggravating character in my opinion.  It may be described as a standard opportunist burglary of non-domestic premises.

17.I therefore propose to deal with you by way of the normal and standard tariff.

18.I take therefore as a starting point 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty.  You will go to prison for 20 months.