HKSAR v. Cheung Cheuk Hung

DCCC791/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 791 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of burglary, each of the offences relating to burglaries at commercial premises. The 1st offence was committed in 2002, three of the offences were committed in 2005 and one of them in 2008.

2.A very similar modus operandi was adopted in each of the offences.  They were committed at night, the defendant gained access to the premises by securing the main door, he ransacked the premises and took out any items which he thought might be of value.

3.In the 1st offence that included $17,000 in cash and a camera.  He was less successful in the other burglaries.  How these matters came to light was that items were seized at the burgled premises and from those items the Government Laboratory was able to extract DNA samples which were found to match those of the defendant. When the defendant was cautioned and arrested for these matters, he said that he could not recall the individual incidents but would admit the offences were committed by him if the DNA found at the scene proved to be his.

4.The defendant has previous convictions in 1995, 2000 and 2010.  In 2000 for three burglaries he was given Community Service. 10 years later he appeared for five offences of burglary and was sentenced to a total of 40 months’ imprisonment.  The way in which the court dealt with that was that he was given 20 months for each of the offences and the four later offences were dealt with by way of consecutive sentences of 5 months, making a total of 40 months.

5.In respect of a further charge of going equipped for stealing, he was given an extra 3 months, which brought the total on that occasion up to 43 months, and he is now serving that sentence.

6.I am told that his earliest release date is in March 2012.  The defendant is 42 years of age, he is married, his wife is a housewife and they have a son who is unemployed aged 23.  Before he was arrested in 2010 he worked as a delivery worker. 

7.A letter of remorse has been placed before the court written by the defendant, in which he expresses his regret for the offences and also for the anxiety he has brought to his family.   

8.I am told by the counsel who represents him today that when the defendant was arrested in 2010, he was arrested for the offence of going equipped for stealing, and I was told that when he was taken to the police station a number of old files were presented to him and he admitted the commission of the five burglaries for which he was sentenced.

9.It was whilst he has been in prison for those offences that the analysis of the DNA samples has taken place and his involvement in the current offences came to light.  Counsel for the defence said that had these matters been presented to him back in 2010, he would have admitted them and been dealt with for all offences at that time.      

10.I note in respect of the burglary offences, for the 2nd to 5th burglaries he was given consecutive sentences of 5 months, and the total sentence just for the burglaries was 40 months. 

11.In respect of these offences the appropriate starting point is 2½ years’ imprisonment and that will be reduced to 20 months to reflect his guilty pleas. 

12.I have to consider the question of totality and I also propose to consider how the court might have dealt with these offences had they been before the court in 2010.

13.Superficially one might be tempted to say that 5 months should be added for each of these offences, to run consecutively.  However, the court might have considered that the totality that that would involve would have been excessive since it would have put the sentence up to about 65 months. 

14.Defendant, according to the calculations, because you have got less than 8 months imprisonment to serve.  I impose a sentence of 18 months concurrent on each of offences with 12 months to run consecutive to the existing sentences.