HKSAR v. Chau Chi Wai

DCCC29/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 29 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The premises concerned were inside the Kingswin Industrial Building in Lei Muk Road, Kwai Chung in the New Territories.

2.On 9 December 2010 the defendant broke into these premises and stole a safe, two digital cameras, and inside the safe was $33,554.50.

3.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that he was an employee of the company concerned, which was Amerasia Trade Company Limited.  He was sacked in October 2010. 

4.The premises were secured at 6 o'clock on the evening of 9 December, and the burglary was discovered at 6.45 the following day.  Staff of the company found the iron gate had been prised open.  There were signs of ransacking inside the company.  The back door had been left ajar.  The safe containing cash of $33,554.50 was taken, two digital cameras and a further amount of cash of $2,000.  The matter was reported to the police.

5.Recovered from the scene was a leather belt and some boxes of cling film and two packages of food.  The police viewed the CCTV’s tape of the building where the defendant lives, and from that tape they saw that he was carrying home some bulky objects in a trolley at about 6.35 on the morning of 10 December.  He was arrested outside his flat at 12.42 that day and, on search, an electric drill was found on him.  The police later went to his flat, where they recovered the safe and the two digital cameras. 

6.The defendant, under caution, admitted that he’d been previously employed by the company from 2006 to October 2010.  He had gone to the premises at midnight on 10 December and used a plier to prise open the iron gate of the company to gain entry.  He stole P1 and P2, that is the safe and the cameras, and cash of about $1,000.  He said he had brought the leather belt with him to assist his escape, and he placed the cling film on the floor to block the light.  He used a trolley to take away the stolen items, and the drill that was found upon him he intended to use to open the safe. 

7.The defendant has a previous conviction of a dissimilar nature.  In 1999, for possession of Part 1 poison, he was fined $500. 

8.The defendant is 36.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 2 level.  He later worked as a lorry attendant, and then as a driver.  He was married, but divorced in 2009.  I am told that the motivation for committing the offence was because of a need for money; he has been out of work. 

9.I am told that the defendant has written a letter in which he states that he is very remorseful for his involvement in this matter.  He is very concerned about the anxiety he has caused to his family members.  He acknowledges that what he did was wrong, and in future he promises to work hard.  And he asked for leniency. 

10.As counsel for the defence has rightly acknowledged, the usual starting point for offences involving non-domestic premises is 2½ years' imprisonment.  Involved in this case a safe was taken, and over $33,000 was inside the safe.  The defendant equipped himself with a drill which he intended to use to open the safe. 

11.On the credit side, the defendant has essentially a clear record.  He admitted the offence to the police when he was arrested, and he has admitted the offence in court today.  And nearly all the property has been recovered.

12.I have decided to take a starting point of 2½ years.  I give the defendant credit for his guilty plea, and the sentence will be reduced to a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment.