HKSAR v. Chu Kwok Wai

DCCC 822/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 822 OF 2013

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Burglary". The burgled premises are 2 occupied residential units.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

2.Mr. HA and his mother reside at Room 2814, Hiu Shun House (Block H), Hiu Lai Court, Sau Mau Ping.

3.About 3:40 pm on 1 June 2013, Mr. HA returned home and discovered that his flat has been burgled.  The properties listed in Charge 1 were found missing.  Their total value is about $7,400.  Mr. HA reported the matter to the Police.  As a result of the burglary, Mr. HA incurred expenses in a total sum of $1,260 for replacement of travel documents and repair of his flat's iron grille and wooden door.  He had no home insurance.

4.From a knife, which belongs to Mr. HA, found in the kitchen sink, a fingerprint matching the defendant's left middle finger was lifted.

Charge 2

5.Madma NGAI and her daughter (Madam WONG) reside at Room 2813, Hiu Shun House.

6.About 2:45 pm on 2 June 2013, Madam NGAI returned home and discovered that her flat has been burgled.  The properties listed in Charge 2 were found missing.  Their total value is about $4,700.  Madam NGAI reported the matter to the Police.  As a result of the burglary, Madam NGAI incurred expenses in a total sum of $1,000 for repair of her flat's iron grille and wooden door.  She had home insurance.

7.From the wooden door of the flat, a fingerprint matching the defendant's left little finger was lifted.

Arrest and Admissions

8.On 4 June 2013, the defendant was arrested on the Ground Floor of Hiu Shun House.  He was living in Room 2714 of the same building.  A set of screwdrivers, a digital voice recorder, an LED light and a torch (all of which belong to Madam WONG) were found in the defendant's home.

9.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he had burgled the 2 flats specified in Charges 1 and 2.  He used a 2-foot long screwdriver to prize open the doors.  He took the stolen properties home and spent the stolen cash on mahjong games and dangerous drugs.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is now 38. He has 17 criminal records, which include 2 burglary-related offences and a number of theft-related offences. He also has multiple drug-related convictions. His last conviction (KTCC 2800/2013) is dated June 2013 (a drug-related offence; he was given a DATC Order). At present, he is still being treated in a DATC.

11.Prosecuting counsel Ms. FUNG informed me that the drug offence in KTCC 2800/2013 took place prior to the 2 burglary offences in the present case; the defendant committed the present 2 offences when he was absconding from Police bail for that drug offence.

12.At the age of 10, the defendant came to Hong Kong from the mainland with his parents. He is divorced and has been unemployed for a while. Defence lawyer Mr. CHONG submitted that the present case is a sad one. The root of the problem is the defendant's drug habit. Mr. CHONG further submitted that the defendant was not caught red-handed, yet he chose to cooperate and made full admissions to the Police. Regarding compensation, the defendant does not have the financial ability now, but is willing to do so after his release.

13.According to his criminal records, the defendant's drug problem has been troubling him since 1997. From that point onwards, he continuously got himself into trouble with offences either related to drug or theft. The defendant has only himself to blame.

14.The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. I accept that there are no aggravating features in this case and I would not raise the starting point because of the defendant's previous similar convictions. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount. Hence, the sentence I pass for each charge is 2 years' imprisonment.

15.Charges 1 and 2 are separate and distinct. The burgled flats are adjacent to each other and the 2 offences took place only 1 day apart. Having considered the totality principle, I order 1 year in Charge 2 to run consecutive to Charge 1; thereby arriving at a total prison term of 3 years for both charges.