HKSAR v. Cheong Sun Ho

DCCC393/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 393 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.You pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.You admitted the facts and I convicted you.  Briefly the facts were as follows.

3.PW1 was the owner of Room 405, 4th Floor, Cosmopolitan Centre, Nathan Road, where he kept $35,000 in a cabinet.  On 5 June last year, he went abroad leaving PW2 to look after the premises.  The premises were left secured.   

4.On 10 August of last year, the premises were found to have been burgled.  The toilet window had been prised, the $35,000 had been taken, and the premises ransacked.

5.The police were informed.  Your fingerprints and palm prints were found and you were arrested. 

6.You admitted to seven previous convictions and one subsequent conviction, five of which were for dishonesty and three being burglaries.  

7.On your behalf, Mr Li entered mitigation.  He told me that you are 27 years of age, single and educated to Form 3.  At the time of the offence you were employed as a waiter in a bar.  You are currently serving 2 years’ imprisonment, which was imposed by the District Court on 17 November of last year.

8.I am told that at the time of the arrest for that offence, you made a full confession to the present matter but as you could not recall the address of the premises, no charges were laid at that time.

9.This present offence was committed on 10 August of last year and the offence for which you are serving imprisonment five days later, on 15 August. 

10.Mr Li submitted that if the two offences had been dealt with together, there is at least a chance the judge may have taken the view that they should be served concurrently.  However, if I did not accept that, then the principle of totality should be taken into account, the implication being that they should be partially consecutive and partially concurrent.

11.Very fairly, Mr Li conceded that you had previous convictions for this type of offence and that the $35,000 had never been recovered, it had in fact been used to repay debts.

12.I turn now to the sentence.

13.I have to say that apart from the plea of guilty and the admissions made to the police, there is little or no mitigation in this case.  The burglary was of domestic premises, the stolen money was not recovered and there is no possibility of compensation.  You have an undistinguished record and in fact have previous convictions for burglary.  

14.I do in fact take the usual tariff, that is a starting point of 3 years, reduced to 2 years for your plea of guilty. 

15.This was a totally different offence from the one for which you had previously received 2 years, being committed some five days earlier.  In my opinion, a totally concurrent sentence is not appropriate.

16.However, I do accept that if the two offences had been dealt with together, the principle of totality would have dictated there would be a partial concurrent and partially   consecutive sentence.

17.Therefore the sentence will be served in this way:  12 months will be concurrent to the period imposed on 17 November and 12 months will be consecutive.