HKSAR v. Hui Yuen Kwan
|
DCCC983/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 983 OF 2011 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary. Two of the offences were committed at the same place, namely a market stall in the Sheung Tak Market in Sheung Tak Estate. That was Charges 1 and 3. The 2nd charge was committed at a storeroom of a podium at Kay Yan House in Kay Court, Ngau Tau Kok. 2.Dealing with Charges 1 and 3 first of all, they were committed respectively on or about 24 November 2010 and 1 August 2011. The victim in that case, Mr Ngan, who is the owner of the stall in the market, left the stall at about 7.30 in the evening. When he left the stall the entrance was not completely closed, there was a gap of about one square metre which was covered by a wooden board. Although Mr Ngan left the stall at 7.30, the market itself still remained open. 3.The following day he discovered that the wooden board had been moved and $1,300 in coins had been stolen from a coin box inside the stall. 4.Following that incident, the victim installed a CCTV. On 1 August he discovered that his stall had again been entered and coins, $1,000, had been stolen from the coin box. CCTV footage was viewed and it was seen that the defendant had entered the location at 10 o’clock on 1 August. A few days later the defendant was seen by a police officer in the Sheung Tak Estate and arrested. 5.The defendant denied breaking into the location. He said that he found the location was unlocked and he sneaked in to take away the coins. 6.Dealing with Charge 2, the victim in that case lived in Kay Yan House. Between October and December 2010 she conducted an interior decoration in her premises and she rented a storeroom at the podium to store her property. She discovered on 21 December that the lock had been prised open and a television set valued at $2,000 had been stolen. 7.The fingerprints of the defendant were found at the premises and he was later arrested and charged with that offence and made no reply. 8.The defendant has a number of previous convictions. There are 11 previous court appearances, none of them are for burglary, although he has previous convictions for robbery, attempted robbery and also for attempted theft. 9.The record shows that the first seven court appearances were in the years 2002 and 2003, and in November 2003 he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. 10.There is then a break in his record until 2010, and then he is before the court for a number of minor drug-related offences and for attempted theft and was given short prison sentences in respect of those offences. 11.The 2010 appearance, he was sentenced to prison for 2 months, and he committed the first two charges before the court today shortly after his release from prison. He then appeared before the court in 2011 in January for possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to a total of 5 months’ imprisonment, and he was on bail for those offences at the time he committed the first two offences. 12.In mitigation, I am told the defendant is 29 years of age, he was born in China, he was educated to Primary 5 level in Hong Kong. He has had a number of previous jobs but works casually for $300 a day. He committed these offences because of his drug habit, he needed money for drugs. 13.As offences of burglary go, these are very much at the lower end of the scale, certainly the ones in connection with the market stall. 14.I take the view that for those offences the appropriate starting point would be a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment and I would reduce the sentences there to 16 months to reflect his guilty plea. 15.As regards the second offence, that is slightly more serious, so I take the usual point for a burglary offence in connection with non-domestic premises, namely one of 2½ years’ imprisonment, and reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea, so the sentence for that offence would be 20 months’ imprisonment. 16.I have to consider the question of totality. 17.What I have decided to do to reach the total sentence I think appropriate for this offence is to state that the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 shall run concurrently and that 8 months of the sentence on Charge 3 should run consecutively, making a total of 28 months’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||