HKSAR v. Chan Man Yeung

DCCC 465/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 465 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleads guilty before me to 4 counts of Burglary. He was originally charged of 5 counts of burglary but upon his plea of guilty to 4 counts of which the prosecution applied to leave charge (3) on the court file.

2.The subject offences were committed by the Defendant in the period between 2 January 2013 (charge (1)) and 1 March 2013 (charge (5)),  all of them happened at domestic premises under renovation, with similar modes. 

3.The Defendant first spotted a target premises which was under renovation.  After all the workers left he will then disguise as a worker, searched the key to the door of the premises, which is usually left in the vicinity nearby by the workers, then entered and stole the tools of the workers placed therein.

4.He was caught red handed after he had committed charge (5) and on questioning by the police, he admitted also the other charges.  The value of the stolen properties ranged from HK$2,000 to HK$17,150, which he has sold (except those under charge (5) which has been retrieved from the Defendant) at undervalues at Ap Liu Street.

5.The Defendant is a repeated offender, many of which involve dishonesty. He committed different kind of offence starting from 1988 and since 2003 he has been convicted of 13 counts of burglary related offences.  His last conviction of burglary was on 1 November 2010 and received a total sentence of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment for 4 counts.  Upon my enquiry Mr Bok, counsel for the Defendant, admitted that those charges are of the same nature of the present ones, all related to burglary of renovating premises for tools.  He committed charge (1) within 2 months after his release from the prison.

6.The Defendant is now 41 years old.  He was born in Hong Kong and has been a renovation worker.  In recent years he was employed by a restaurant as a waiter earning around HK$7,000 to HK$8,000 per month.  He has to contribute monthly HK$1,000 to HK$1,500 to his parents and HK$2,000 to HK$3,000 to his wife in Mainland China.  Mr Bok submitted that his income could not meet his expenses.

Sentence

7.Although the subject premises are domestic premises, they were vacated for renovation at the time of the burglaries.  For the purpose of sentencing I will treat them as non-domestic premises, adopting the principles under HKSAR v Yeung Kwok-sang[1].

8.The usual starting point I should adopt for burglary of non-domestic premises is 30 months’ imprisonment.

9.The Defendant has committed 4 burglaries within a period of 2 months. He was just released from the prison for only 2 months when he committed the 1^st offence.  And the previous sentence was for burglaries of exactly the same nature.  All these factors point to a personal deterrent sentence on the Defendant being necessary.

10.Taking into account the appalling records for burglary of the Defendant, I would enhance the starting point for 6 months on each count.  On the other hand, benefits should be given to the Defendant for his voluntary admissions in respect of charges (1), (2) and (4) and I would reduce the starting point of those counts by 6 months each.

11.Therefore, the starting point I adopt for charges (1), (2) and (4) would be 30 months’ imprisonment and that of charge (5) would be 36 months.  Taking into account his guilty plea, the sentences are reduced to 20 months and 24 months respectively.

Totality

12.Although they are of similar nature and committed within a short period of time, the offences are separate offences and they call for separate sentences.

13.However, the principle of totality should be considered.  As I mentioned, a personal deterrent sentence on the Defendant is appropriate and in my view an overall sentence of 4 years, reflecting a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, is appropriate in the circumstances. 

14.To give effect to this sentence I order that 8 months of the sentences for charges (1), (2) and (4) be consecutive to charge (5) and each other and the remaining sentences be concurrent to each others, making a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.

[1] CACC 4/2006, unreported, dated 13 April 2006.