HKSAR v. Wong Shu Fai

Case No.DCCC 180/2013
Court
District Court
Date19 Apr 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%

DCCC 180/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 180 OF 2013

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

  HKSAR  
  v.  
  WONG Shu-fai  
-----------------------------------
Before: HH Judge E. Yip
Date: 19 April 2013 at 15:27 pm
Present: Miss Monica CHAN, Public Prosecutor, of the Department
  of Justice, for HKSAR
  Ms YU Mei Lin Catherine, of M/s C. Yu & Co assignedby DLA for Defendant
Offence: (1), (4), (5), (6), (8), (10), (11), (13) to (19)  Burglary(入屋犯法罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges

1.The defendant pleads guilty to 14 charges of burglary (ie Charges 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) committed at 14 substations of the Hong Kong Electric Company ("HKEC") on Hong Kong Island between 13 January 2010 and 31 August 2012 (ie 2 years 7 ½ months). 

Facts

2.He was arrested just after committing the offence under Charge 19 on 31 August 2012. 

3.HKEC has 3,758 electricity substations all over Hong Kong.  Inside these substations, copper strips were installed along the walls or floors to function as lighting rods to keep the substations from being over-charged.  The substations are located within buildings and their doors secured by padlocks which could be opened by a master key.  Since 2009, HKEC began to replace these padlocks with digital padlocks which could only be opened by digital keys with identity tracing functions.  The padlock replacement project was completed in March 2012.

4.Since January 2010, the staff of HKEC had discovered copper strips missing from the substations.  These burglaries were reported to the police.  Upon review of the CCTV installed at the Times Square substation, the defendant was seen entering these substations and stealing the copper strips.  The defendant was recognized as a technician with HKEC between 1991 and 2008. 

5.On 31 August 2012, the police were keeping any eye on the defendant as he travelled from Yuen Long to Hong Kong Island.  En route on the bus, he was seen to have put on a face mask and placed an expired HKEC card around his neck.  Afterwards, he walked into the substation located at No. 5 Tai Hang Road, Causeway Bay.  About 31 minutes later, he came out with a few bags with contents.  After arrest and caution, he admitted that he had stolen the copper strips from the substation. 

6.He had the following items on him:

(a) 1 expired HKEC card in his own name;

(b) 1 face mask;

(c) 1 rucksack and 2 bags;

(d) 1 pair of gloves;

(e) 5 pieces of copper strips;

(f) 1 wrench and 5 screwdrivers;

(g) 1 roll of adhesive tape;

(h) 1 HKEC key with imprint number K410, the master key;

(i) 1 pair of bolt cutter (Exh. P3);

(j) 1 digital padlock worth $3,700 belonging to HKEC and pertaining to the substation (Exh. P2).

7.In his VRI, he said:

(a) He had worked as a technician at HKEC for 17 years before he left its employ;

(b) He had not returned the expired HKEC staff card so that he could pretend to be its staff;

(c) He committed the burglaries as he was in need of money;

(d) He used a bolt cutter to cut the copper strips into 5 long pieces;

(e) He planned to sell the stolen copper strips at a nearby shop for around $50 per catty;

(f) The key seized was the master key which could open the padlocks installed at all the HKEC substations before the digital padlock replacement;

(g) He used the bolt cutter to cut the staple to which the digital lock was attached;

(h) The adhesive tape would be used to wrap the staples to cover up the slit;

(i) He wore gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints.

8.The present case involves 14 burglaries committed at HKEC substations.  Salient features included: 

(a) The stolen property was mainly copper strips with an estimated value ranged from $1,196 to $4,804 each time;

(b) In 4 burglaries (Charges 14, 15, 16 and 19) the digital padlock was also stolen, each valued at $3,700, with only the last one (Exh. P3) recovered;

(c) Including the last digital padlock, the estimated loss to HKEC was $50,309.40 in total.

Defendants’ personal background and mitigation

9.He is 55 years of age, of F. 2 education level.  He has a clear record.  He had worked as a technician in HKEC until his resignation in order to get the provident fund to repay gambling debts and to continue to gamble in 2008.  He ended up in deficit soon.  He worked at casual jobs for a few months.  Then he had worked for the same employer as a driver cum transportation worker until yesterday, which was 3 years and 9 months. 

10.His wife is a housewife and his son a Year 1 university student.  She suffered from a minor stroke due to his arrest in October 2012 and had to be treated regularly at the hospital.  The family is now in a financial plight. 

11.The letter from Family Service Caritas – Hong Kong indicates that he had been addicted to gambling for many years.  After 4 sessions of individual counseling and 2 sessions of family counseling after his arrest, he had abstained from gambling and come to regret his gambling behavior. His family members and employer have written mitigating letters to the effect that he was a caring and responsible person but for his wrongful means to solve his financial problems.      

Sentencing considerations

12.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, Macdougall JA in the Court of Appeal said that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises would be 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age.  It can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating factors such as:

(a) The offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment;

(b) The offence is committed by two or more people;

(c) The offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties;

(d) The offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist;

(e) The offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of similar nature;

(f) The offender commits multiple offences.

13.In HKSAR v. Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007, the defendant had burgled 3 adjacent commercial premises together in Mongkok on a single occasion 4 months before he burgled 2 commercial premises together in North Point on another occasion.  He had 3 previous convictions for theft.  He was regarded as a professional burglar although he had no previous convictions for burglary.  After reviewing a number of comparable cases, the Court of Appeal affirmed an overall starting point of 5 years (ie 60 months).  The eventual sentence was 40 months based on his guilty pleas.   

14.In HKSAR v. Fan Kit Hung CACC 62/2009, the defendant pleaded guilty to having burgled 13 commercial premises in Hong Kong, Kowloon and N.T. in a span of over 4 months.  The victims suffered an unrecovered loss of over $130,000 in total.  The Court of Appeal reduced an overall sentence of 6 years to 4 years on the ground that 6 years on his guilty pleas would have pointed to a manifestly excessive notional starting point of 9 years. 

Sentencing this defendant

15.He was a professional burglar of copper strips at the substations for a period of 2 years 7 ½ months.  He knew all too well to take only a sustainable quantity of copper strips each time so as not to adversely affect the power system.  He used either the master key or the heavy-duty bolt cutter (Exh. P3) to cut the staple to gain entry into the substation.  The expired staff card might help him slightly in case someone might query his presence there.  I take a starting point of 3 years for each charge.  His guilty pleas attract a one-third discount. 

16.I shall give credit to another mitigating factor.  He has been a person of good character for over 50 years.  He was led to the commission of the offences by his decades-long addiction to gambling. After his arrest, he had made immense efforts to deal with his gambling behavior as stated in the letter from Caritas.  He had abstained from gambling for some time.  I reduce the sentence by a further 4 months.  The sentence is 20 months each. By totality I make the following adjustments:

(a) Charge 1 for 20 months;

(b) Charge 4 for 20 months, consecutive to Charge 1;

(c) 8 months under Charge 5 to be consecutive to Charges 1 and 4;

(d) Other charges concurrent.

17.His overall sentence is 4 years. 

( E. Yip )
District Judge

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

HKSAR v. Chan Man Leung

DCCC 1277/2011 · District Court
15 May 2012
3 shared citations

HKSAR v. Hui Yee Lung

DCCC 811/2011 · District Court
26 Sep 2011
3 shared citations

HKSAR v. Singh Laik

DCCC 283/2021 · District Court
29 Sep 2021
3 shared citations

香港特別行政區 訴 詹子釗

DCCC 59/2015 · District Court
25 Mar 2015
2 shared citations