HKSAR v. Leung Be

DCCC 277/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 277 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and the premises concerned are the Fortune Printing International Limited which is on the 3rd floor of the Chung On Industrial Building in Lee Chung Street, Chai Wan. The defendant stole cash of 42,000 Hong Kong currency and RMB8,000.

2.The offence was committed shortly after midnight on 4 February 2013.  A security guard working at a building opposite the Chung On Industrial Building heard the sound of breaking glass coming from the Chung On Building.  He went to check out the situation and saw the defendant standing on scaffolding outside the Fortune Printing premises on the 3rd floor of Chung On Building, and he saw the defendant enter that company through a window, and subsequently the light inside the company was turned on. 

3.The security guard reported what he saw to the security guard working in the Chung On Building, and the police were called. The police arrived about 20 minutes later.  They saw the defendant standing at a balcony above the entrance of the rear staircase of the Chung On Building. He was wearing gloves and holding a red paper bag.  The defendant was intercepted and searched and it was found that the bag contained the cash, the subject of the charge, and the defendant also had a screwdriver with him.

4.The defendant admitted the offence immediately to the arresting police officers.  The defendant said that he had gone into the building and stolen the property from the cabinets inside which he had prised open, and he said that he had committed the offence because of a gambling debt. 

5.The defendant has appeared in court previously on nine occasions for a total of 19 offences.  Many of those offences are related to offences of dishonesty, including a number of charges of burglary.  In fact, he has been convicted of burglary offences on five previous occasions, and the last four occasions were in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2006.  In 2000, he was sentenced to 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment; in 2003, 2 years’ imprisonment; in 2005 and 2006, he was imprisoned for 22 months on each occasion. 

6.The defendant’s background is that he is 62 years of age and he was born in China, came to Hong Kong in 1950 and was educated to Primary 5 level.  He has worked previously as a kitchen worker but was unemployed at the time the offence was committed.  I am told that he is married with two children aged 13 and 16 and the family live on public assistance, amounting to some $8,000 per month.  I am told that he suffers from hypertension. 

7.I am told that the reason for the offence was that because of his gambling problems, he owes money to loan sharks.  The amount is in excess of $100,000 and he has to repay some $10,000 per month.  I am told that he apologises for the commission of the offence and promises to reform.  Given his criminal record, that promise will be regarded by the court with a degree of scepticism.

8.The normal sentence for an offence of this kind would be a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.  However, given the defendant’s record, it is clear that these sentences do not seem to deter him, and it would seem to me to be wrong in principle for me to sentence him to a lesser sentence than he has received on previous occasions. 

9.What I have decided to do therefore is take a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect his guilty plea.  He will go to prison for the same period of time he went on the last two occasions, namely, 22 months.