HKSAR v. Wei Nengquan and Another

DCCC 1166/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1166 OF 2012

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendants plead guilty to one charge of burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.In summary Mr Ng and his wife Miss Lam resided together with their family at Flat G, 2nd Floor, Block 1, Park Nara, No. 88 Hung Yuen Road, in Yuen Long (“the premises”).  Around 1730 hours on the 21st July last year the family went out, securing the premises including the balcony door before leaving. 

3.Around 2035 hours Miss Lin travelled home by car driven by her husband.  When the car stopped at the traffic lights at the junction of Castle Peak Road and Hung Tak Road Miss Lin spotted two males climbing into one of the blocks of Park Nara. 

4.Miss Lin called the police who arrived for investigation.  While the police made enquiries at the lobby of Block 1 of Park Nara the two defendants emerged from the passenger lift sweating heavily and hurrying towards the exit to avoid the police.  The police intercepted the defendants.

5.Further investigation revealed a broken window near the rear staircase at the rooftop; and a bag containing a torch, a screwdriver, three crowbars, and two pairs of gloves on the 7th floor of the rear staircase.  Forensic examination revealed a shoeprint left in the master bedroom of the premises, which print had the same sole pattern as that of D1’s shoes and DNA found from the bloodstains on the gloves in the bag which matched the DNA of D2.  The police also reviewed the CCTV of the building which showed at 1956 hours two males climbing the perimeter wall of Park Nara; D1 and D2 at the rear staircase at 2101 hours with D2 carrying a bag similar to the one found on the 7th floor of the rear staircase; and D1 and D2 entering the lift at 2107 hours after which they were intercepted by the police when they walked out of the lift into the lobby.

6.In the meantime Miss Lam returned home to find the premises had been ransacked and the balcony door open.  Miss Lam found the items particularised in the charge missing from the drawers in the bedrooms.  However in the master bedroom all except a ring and a necklace were found in a shoulder bag belonging to Mr Ng. Mr Pang explained in court that the defendants were frightened and left the bag behind.  The ring was found by the police in the lobby of Block 1 but the necklace was never recovered. Mr Pang says the defendants did not take the necklace away and do not know where it was left. 

7.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Pang on behalf of the defendants, including that due to their poor financial situation in the Mainland the defendants committed the burglary. 

8.The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment (see Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).

9.The defendants entered Hong Kong the same day at 1637 hours.  I am satisfied the only inference to draw is that they entered Hong Kong equipped to commit burglary.  Entering Hong Kong to commit crime is an aggravating feature of sentence.  Accordingly I increase the starting point by 6 months to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. 

10.Giving the defendants full credit for their pleas of guilty they are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 4 months imprisonment.