HKSAR v. Lai Kau

DCCC 1105/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1105 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to burglary with another person of a warehouse cum office unit situated on 6^th Floor of an industrial building in Yuen Long.  The victim company lost some electronic parts kept in the warehouse, $27,500 cash kept in 2 drawers and a safe containing RMB and HK currencies to the approximate value of HK$150,000 kept in the office.

2.According to the CCTV footage, the break-in took place at 9:32 p.m., which was only 36 minutes after the occupier locked up the unit.  The Defendant and his accomplice were wearing raincoats, masks and gloves.  One was carrying a bag.  They broke open the padlock on the gate of the main entrance.  After 1½ hours, they came out of the unit via the stairs with 3 big bags and a safe. 

3.The unit had an area of 10,000 sq. ft.  There were signs of extensive ransacking.  The occupier discovered a plastic water bottle foreign to the toilet inside the unit. 

4.The Defendant was arrested 6 months afterwards at home based on DNA found on the mouthpiece of the bottle. The Defendant’s DNA on file matched the counterpart on the bottle.   

Personal background and mitigation put forward

5.The Defendant is 53 years of age.  He was educated up to P6.  His father had died.  His mother and younger brother are in Dongguan.  He lives with his girlfriend.  About 2 months before the offence, his girlfriend had suffered a stroke.  He was eager to make quick money.  He therefore committed the present offences.       

6.He has a host of dishonesty convictions.  His heaviest sentence so far has been for robbery in 1991 where he was sentenced to 8 years.  After release, he committed 3 instances of trafficking in dangerous drugs in 1997.  He committed a burglary each in 2002 and 2006 and once going equipped for stealing in 2005. His counsel accepts that he is a repeat offender for dishonesty offences and this is an aggravating factor in sentencing.

7.His counsel accepts that the raincoats, masks and gloves were a camouflage. The safe was even removed.  They stayed there for 1½ hours to extensively search the unit without apparently worrying the return of the occupier.  The burglary was rather well-planned.  The substantial monetary loss is an aggravating factor. 

Sentencing guidelines for non-domestic premises

8.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, the Court of Appeal stated that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises would be 2½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age.  In HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing Cr App 450/2000, the Court of Appeal stated that such starting point related to burglaries with no aggravating features.   

Present sentence

9.For non-domestic burglary as present, I take a starting point of 30 months.  For the Defendant’s repeat offending, I increase it by 3 months.  For the joint enterprise, planning and substantial loss, I increase it by 9 months.  Out of the overall starting point of 42 months, I give a one-third discount for the plea of guilty.  There are no other mitigating factors.  The sentence is 28 months.