HKSAR v. Chan Chung Kan

DCCC1098/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1098 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.In sentencing, I take into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, personal background of the defendant, mitigation put forward on his behalf and have had regard to sentencing precedents.

3.The facts of the case are simple.  It was a burglary in a commercial premise.  On 12 October 2009 the staff left the office having locked the door and gate.  When they returned in the morning of the following day, they found the office ransacked and all the drawers prized open.  The following items were found missing: one Prada handbag, three bottles of wine, cash of ¥2,000 Renminbi and HK$3,000.

4.The defendant is 56 years of age.  He received education in the mainland up to primary 6 level.  He had worked as a construction site worker, restaurant kitchen worker, technician and a decoration worker.  His average monthly income was about $8,000.  He is married. He is the sole breadwinner of the family.  His wife and their 10 years old daughter were living in the mainland.  He also has a son 38 years old, but the defendant had lost contact with him.

5.The defendant is not a first-time offender.  He was on 6 previous occasions convicted, the first dated back to 1975 when he was fined for the offence of being carried in a conveyance without authority.  In 1976, he was convicted of two triad-related offences and the offence of taking conveyance without authority.  In 1983, he was convicted of serious offences of possession of arms without licence and conspiracy to rob and was sentenced to a total sentence of 12 years.  In 1996, he was again convicted of possession of arms without a licence and was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.  In 2004, he was fined for gambling.  In 2005, he was sentenced to 3½ years’ imprisonment for an offence of burglary.  He was released in July 2007.  After 2 years, he committed the present offence.

6.In mitigation, learned defence counsel asked the court to take into account the age of the defendant and the impact on the family and said that the defendant is now determined to turn over a new leaf. For this last matter, I am not going to accept readily.

7.The burglary took place in an office.  In normal circumstances, a starting point of 2½ years should be considered.  The present case was clearly premeditated.  Equipments fit to commit burglary were found. The office was ransacked.  The defendant has a poor record which includes a conviction of dishonesty offence though this is the only second time he was convicted of the offence of burglary.

8.Having considered the whole circumstances, I am of the view that a starting point of 3 years is appropriate.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty plea.  In all the circumstances, having regard to mitigation, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to in this case.

9.No doubt the family of the defendant will suffer.  However, this is what the defendant should consider before he embarked on committing the offence rather than to plead for mercy on this ground.  I therefore sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.