HKSAR v. Yeung Tat-fun

DCCC217/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 217 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The charge

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary.  Such offence is contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

Facts

2.The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.

3.The victim was the occupier of a flat situated at

4.At around 8 pm on 12 December 2011, the victim heard noises coming from outside his flat.  He then saw a shadow at the terrace which was attached to the premises.  He discovered that the door to the terrace was broken and a crowbar was on the floor.

5.Eventually, a report to the police was  made.

6.At around 8.12 pm on the same day, the police arrived at the building where the premises were situated.

7.Upon seeing the defendant leaving hurriedly, they intercepted him.

8.A black bag containing a pipe-cutter, two screwdrivers, a magnetic pen, a cutter, a saw, a torch, an electric drill, a hammer, a pair of pliers, some drill and screwdriver heads was found on the floor of the premises.

9.The CCTV installed inside the lift of the building showed that the defendant entered the lift at around 6.30 pm that day.

10.The defendant was arrested for burglary.

11.Under caution, the defendant admitted the following:

(a) on the day in question, he entered the building at 6.45 pm with the intent to steal some metal;

(b) he was carrying the said black bag with tools contained therein;

(c) he used a crowbar to prise open the door of the said terrace on the 22nd floor;

(d) when the victim was alerted, he climbed up to the rooftop and smashed the rooftop door and then fled via the rear staircase;

(e) he was then caught by the police while he was leaving.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

12.The defendant, aged 35, was a casual construction worker.  He was married in 2006 in China, but living with his parents and siblings in Hong Kong.

13.He has nine previous convictions, most of which were drug-related.  Obviously, he did not treasure the chances given to him by the court in the past.

14.In February 2001, he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment by the district judge of burglary offence, and

15.Apart from his guilty plea, this court sees no remorse from him.  There is nothing much defence counsel could say on his behalf in mitigation.

Sentencing guidelines

16.The subject premises were a domestic premises in a residential building.

17.The Court of Appeal in Chan Yui Man, CACC 36/1988, laid down general guidelines of sentence for domestic burglary.  It was held that 3 years imprisonment was the proper starting point for a first offender of full age in domestic burglary.

Sentence

18.Having fully considered the background of the case and that of the defendant, the mitigation advanced by the defence counsel and the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal, this court is prepared to and will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

19.Apart from the usual one-third discount given for the defendant’s guilty plea, there were no other circumstances which would justify any further reduction in sentence.

20.This court now imposes a 2 years’ imprisonment.