HKSAR v. Tang Wing Piu

DCCC 452/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 452 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Overview

1.The defendant is convicted on his own plea of one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.201.

2.The facts to which the defendant has admitted reveal that on or about 27 March 2013 a shop located at No. 6, Ground Floor, Harmony Garden, No. 9 Siu Sai Wan Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, was under renovation (“the Premises”). The front and the rear entrances of the Premises were secured by wooden boards and locks.

3.At about 2200 hours on 27 March 2013 the renovation worker locked all the entrances of the Premises, and then left.  At about 0900 hours on 28 March 2013, when the renovation workers returned to the Premises they found the following items were stolen:

(1) 1 box of water tape parts,

(2) 1 hydraulic drill,

(3) 1 electric gun,

(4) 1 electric chisel,

(5) 1 jigsaw,

(6) 1 planer,

(7) 1 grinder,

(8) 10 rolls of electric wires,

(9) 2 electric drills (Exhibits 1 and 2),

(10) 3 electric drill batteries (Exhibits 3 to 5), and

(11) 2 electric drill chargers (Exhibits 6 and 7).

4.The value of all the items was about $14,300.

5.A report was then made to the police.  At the same time, the defendant’s Hong Kong ID card and a bank card were found on the ground inside the Premises.

6.At about 0156 hours on 30 March 2013 the defendant was stopped and searched by the police at the Victoria Park.  Being aware of the fact that the defendant was on the wanted list, he was arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted the offence.

7.Later, Exhibits 1 to 7 were recovered from the defendant’s residence.  In a subsequent video recorded interview the defendant admitted under caution that he entered into the Premises at about 0400 hours on 28 March 2013, during which he took away the stolen items.  Exhibits 1 to 7 were kept at home, whilst some of the items were being sold to a recycle shop for about $800.  He also confirmed that he dropped his ID card and bank card during the commission of the offence.

Mitigation

8.The defendant is now 29 years of age, single. He was educated up to Form 3.  He previously worked as a cleaning worker, earning about $12,000 each month.  He has nine previous criminal convictions, four of which are burglary in 2008 and two of which are offences related to dishonesty.  He is now serving a sentence in DATC since his last conviction on 27 May 2013.

Sentence

9.For burglary of non-domestic premises the usual starting point is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment without aggravating or mitigating features.  In the present case, as revealed by the Summary of Facts, the front and the rear entrances of the Premises were secured by locks at the material time.  The offence was committed in the early hours of the morning. 

10.Having considered all the circumstances, I reject that the defendant was a mere opportunist.  I find that there must be a degree of premeditation and planning.

11.Having considered his previous record and mitigation advanced on his behalf, in all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment.  To reflect his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.  Apart from that I see no other mitigating factor that warrant any further reduction in the sentence.

12.In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.