HKSAR v. Tsang Hing Wah

DCCC 1009/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1009 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant admits burgling a village house in Yuen Long, N.T.  In the afternoon on 13 August 2011, whilst the occupants were away from home, he stole cash in different currencies and valuable items in the total equivalent sum of over $40,000.  A neighbour had found him suspicious but failed to intercept him.  A report was made to the police.  He was arrested after a short while in the vicinity. 

2.There were simple break-in tools on the ground nearby.  A window on the lower floor was prized open with the grille removed.  A locked cabinet was prized open.  The bedrooms looked ransacked.  Different currencies and valuable items equivalent to about $30,000 were recovered in the vicinity or from the Defendant, as the case may be.  

Personal background and mitigation put forward

3.The Defendant is 47 years of age, of P.3 level.  He has 8 previous records of burglary and 2 of going equipped for stealing.  He has a 14-year-old son from previous marriage. His girlfriend had been pregnant for 2 months when he committed the present offence.  He had no income to meet expenses present and future.  His solicitor urges me not to regard him as a recidivist as his last burglary record was dated 8 September 2000.

Sentencing guidelines for domestic premises

4.The Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for burglary of domestic premises.  For a fresh offender, 3 years is the starting point in the absence of aggravating factors (Attorney General v Lui Kam-chi[1993] 1 HKC 215; HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565）.

Sentencing this Defendant

5.The Defendant has to be regarded as a recidivist offender.  According to the Antecedent Statement accepted by the defence, he was last released from prison on 21 October 2008 due to going equipped for stealing, which is an offence closely related to burglary.  The sentence there was 8 months.  It is a fact that he had not committed any offence in a span of 2 years and 10 months after that sentence.  However, he has had a distinctive and recurrent trait in resorting to burglary or going equipped for stealing throughout his life so far.  This pattern calls for a stronger deterrence.  I take 3 years and 3 months as the starting point. Giving credit to his plea of guilty, I sentence him to 2 years and 2 months as he has no other mitigating factors.