HKSAR v. Chiu Chi Keung

DCCC643/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 643 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 7 May this year he entered a non-domestic premises (an office) in Castle Peak Road, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon.  He stole from within a mobile phone (a Blackberry), three bags, one card holder and RMB$260.

3.The facts agreed are as follows; at 7.30 pm that evening, the defendant was discovered by the company proprietor inside her office.  She had previously locked the glass door of these premises at 5.00 pm.  When she came back she stumbled upon the defendant.  Obviously the defendant easily opened her glass door and entered the office.

4.I have been told in mitigation that the defendant was wandering around this industrial building looking for an opportunity. Clearly the defendant had no other reason to be there, so I suspect that he was looking to burgle or steal anything of value.  When the defendant was discovered by the proprietor he had already taken her Blackberry, put it in his pocket, as well as her bags.

5.There was a struggle between the defendant and the prosecution witnesses.  The police were also called.  By the time the defendant had got himself into the lift and was trying to get out of the building the police had arrived.  He was caught red-handed.  

6.I have been told the defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has eight previous convictions, of which three relate to burglary.  Of those three occasions in court, there were in total five charges of burglary, the last conviction being in the year 2009.  The defendant could not have been released long before he was arrested again for this burglary. 

7.I have heard full mitigation on the defendant’s behalf.  The defendant is an only child and his father died 8 years ago in 2003.  Sadly, the defendant’s mother is a mental health patient and has been living in Kwai Chung Hospital for at least the past 2 years.  The defendant is therefore very much alone.  The defendant had learning difficulties at school, is not very highly educated and therefore not been able to gain meaningful employment in his adulthood.  Sadly, the defendant has turned to crime to make ends meet. 

8.The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty.  

9.Normally, the starting point for a non-domestic burglary is 2½ years’ imprisonment.  That is where there is no aggravating or mitigating factors present.  It can be said the defendant has many previous similar convictions.  The defendant is bordering on a recidivist, a repeat offender.   I could increase the starting point because of this aggravating factor, but I will not today but the defendant should be warned if he continues to burgle and commit this offence the starting point will increase in the future.

10.With respect, I do not accept the view the defendant was on this day an opportunistic thief or burglar.  He went to the building I am sure to look for premises to enter or valuables to steal.  He did have to break open a secured glass door.  This is not a case where he wandered into an empty, open office. 

11.I see no reason to lower the starting point for this sentence.  Accordingly, I will take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea of guilty today. 

12.The defendant is therefore for this offence sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.