HKSAR v. Chan Siu Po
|
DCCC 29/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 29 OF 2013 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary. Both the offences were committed at the same commercial premises, namely a freezer warehouse on the 2nd Floor of Yeh Lam Kwok Group Building in Kwai Chung in the New Territories. 2.He entered the premises in respect of the 1st charge on 4 August 2012 and stole four boxes of fish curd. He returned on 29 August and stole 5 boxes of chicken chops. 3.Shortly before the commission of the two offences, the defendant had been employed as a delivery worker by a logistics company called Lung Kong Logistics and he worked there from 16 January 2012 until 7 July 2012. One of his jobs was to deliver goods to the freezer warehouse. However, on 7 July he was laid off because of misconduct. 4.At around 2.40 pm on 4 August 2012, a Mr Chan, PW2, who is a delivery worker of the Tin Tat Enterprise Limited, saw the defendant pushing a handcart with four boxes of fish curd leaving the building. PW2 paid no special attention to what he saw as he regarded the defendant as simply being another delivery worker. However, on 7 August when a stocktaking was made, it was found that four boxes of fish curd valued at $1,700 was missing and the matter was reported to the police. 5.At 10.40 am on the morning of 29 August 2012, the defendant returned to the freezer warehouse and by taxi. He told the taxi driver to wait outside the premises while he went inside to get some goods. At around 11 am, the defendant approached PW2 at the entrance of the building and borrowed a handcart from him. PW2 suspected that the defendant was intending to steal property and alerted his supervisor, PW1. When the defendant was leaving the building, PW2 found the defendant pushing a handcart on which there were five boxes of chicken chops valued at $1,290. Before the defendant had an opportunity of being driven away from the premises, PW1 and PW2 stopped and confronted the defendant who claimed he was a delivery worker. PW1 requested the defendant to return to the freezer warehouse for verification but the defendant escaped and the case was reported to the police. 6.CCTV footage at the premises showed that the defendant had been at the premises on both the 4th and 29 August. An ex‑employer of the defendant viewed the footage and told the police that it was the defendant on the footage and provided them with his residential address. The defendant was arrested at his residence at 5.15 on 29 August. 7.The defendant was frank with the police and told then he had stolen the items referred to in the two charges. He said that he had previously worked as a delivery worker and had delivered goods to the freezer warehouse and noticed that the security measures were poor. As regards to the 1st offence, he said that he kept three boxes of the fish curd for self-consumption and sold one box at a market stall for $120. He said he committed the offence because of his financial problems. 8.The defendant has appeared before the court on five previous occasions in respect of six offences. Two of those offences involved offences of theft, they were committed in 2007 and 2012 and in 2011 he was sentenced to imprisonment for money laundering. I understand he was released from prison on 30 September 2011 in respect of that offence. 9.The defendant is 28 years of age, he was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 5 level. Initially from 2001 to 2003 he had employment as a clerk but he was unemployed thereafter until he started working as a delivery worker in 2012. I am told that he is single and lives with his mother and younger brother. I am also told that he jumped bail in respect of these offences and was re-arrested on 2 November 2012. 10.In mitigation, obviously the main point that was made by defence counsel was that defendant was cooperative with the police at the time of his arrest, he admitted the offence and has admitted the offences in court today. In respect of the 2nd offence, he was detained at the scene before he had an opportunity of taking away the property referred to in the charge. It was said that these offences were committed without much or any planning. On both occasions his image was captured by CCTV cameras. The defendant had taken no steps at all to conceal his identity. I note, however, that both offences were committed in broad daylight and they were quite brazen offences. The defendant was obviously hoping to be taken as yet another delivery worker and he was using the knowledge that he had gained as a delivery worker to effect these crimes. 11.As counsel for the defendant has rightly conceded, the usual starting point for offences of this kind are sentences of 2½ years’ imprisonment and I agree that in respect to these offences that is the appropriate starting point. I take a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment and I reduce those sentences by one-third to reflect his guilty plea. That will reduce the sentence to 20 months’ imprisonment. 12.I have to consider the question of totality. Both the offences were committed in similar circumstances at the same premises albeit on different dates. However, it seems to me that it would be wrong in principle to order both sentences to run entirely concurrently. I therefore decided that 4 months of the sentence on the 2nd offence should run consecutive to the sentence imposed in respect of the 1st offence. 13.The defendant will therefore go to prison for a total period of 24 months.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||