HKSAR v. Wong Wai Leung

DCCC 1065/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1065 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Chargesand facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to 2 burglaries and the possession of ketamine.    

2.In the afternoon of 5 September 2012, the police laid ambush in Tsim Sha Tsui.  The defendant drove a car around with a male passenger.  The defendant later resurfaced alone from the front entrance of Universal Mansion at Hillwood Road.  After he was about to get on board the same car, the police declared their police identity and made a search.  A bag on the front passenger seat contained the following:

(1) A large number of jewelry, valuables and cash, worth about $100,000 in total, later confirmed to be the property of the occupant of the unit of Flat C, 6^th Floor, Phase I, Universal Mansion (1^st Charge);

(2) A MacBook notebook computer, worth about $9,000, later confirmed to be the property of the occupant of the unit of Flat I, 8^th Floor, Phase II, Universal Mansion (2^nd Charge);

(3) 2 crowbars.

3.He had a pair of labour gloves in his pocket.  There were signs that the 2 units were prized open and ransacked. 

4.There was a piece of paper folded to encase 0.04 g of a powder containing ketamine placed on top of the gear box compartment (3^rd Charge).

5.After arrest and caution, what he said included:

(1) He drove the car, which belonged to his father to pick up his friend, “Ah Shing”;

(2) They drove to Observatory Road;

(3) They burgled 2 units in the building with crowbars he had bought;

(4) The drug belonged to him;

(5) Ah Shing had fled on reaching the ground floor before him.

Defendant’spersonal background and mitigation

6.He is 32 years of age, F. 2 education level.  He lives with his girlfriend.  He had 8 previous convictions for burglary. He was last released from jail, in April 2011, for two of such.  It took him less than 13 months to re-engage in the same illicit activities.  He had 2 previous convictions for possession of drugs.  He is said to be a ketamine addict.  His priest writes to ask for leniency on his behalf.    

7.His counsel submits that Ah Shing was the instigator.  He asks for the least aggravation of sentence for his recidivism. He also asks for a concurrent sentence. 

Sentencingconsiderations

8.A first-time burglar of residential premises can expect 3 years without aggravating factors (Attorney General v Lui Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215; HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565). 

9.A recidivist can expect a heavier sentence for more deterrent effect（HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1）.

Sentencing this defendant

10.I consider the substantial value of the property in 1^st Charge, the joint enterprise and his recidivism each an aggravating factor.  I take 4 years as the starting point.  It is reduced to 2 years and 8 months due to his plea of guilty with no other mitigating factors.    

11.Given the joint enterprise, I take 3 years and 9 months as the starting point for 2^nd Charge.  It is reduced to 2 years and 6 months due to his plea of guilty with no other mitigating factors. 

12.I take 6 months as the starting point for 3^rd Charge.  It is reduced to 4 months due to his guilty plea with no other mitigating factors.    

13.By totality, the eventual sentence is 3 years based on the following adjustment:

1^st Charge, 2 years and 8 months; 2^nd Charge, 4 months consecutive to the 1^st Charge; 3^rd Charge, concurrent with 1^st and 2^nd Charges.