HKSAR v. Wong Chun Ho
|
DCCC 165/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 165 OF 2014 --------------------------
------------------------------------ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ------------------------------------ 1.Defendant, Wong Chun Ho (male) (aged 25 years) appeared before me this morning and pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. 2.The particulars of the offence avers that on 17 September 2013, the defendant, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Lux Store, Shop B29, Basement, Chow Tai Fook Centre, No 580A Nathan Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, stole therein cash of $13,692 and some receipts. Facts 3.According to the amended summary of facts as agreed by the defendant before he was convicted, a saleslady of a fashion clothing shop, Lux, as referred in the charge, returned to the shop at around 1 pm on 17 September 2013, only to discover that six envelopes stored in a drawer in the premises containing cash which at that time thought to be the sum of HK$15,447 and also credit cards and EPS receipts from the sales proceeds of the company or store of the preceding days were missing. 4.Later, the two owners of the shop reviewed the CCTV footage of the shop and discovered that the defendant, who was an ex-employee of this shop, had entered the shop at around 1 am earlier on the same date, walked to the drawer of the shop that contained the sales proceeds, “had some action” and then left the shop in around two minutes. 5.One of the owners of the shop telephoned the defendant and confronted the defendant. Later on, the defendant promised to repay the sales proceeds. 6.At around 10 pm on the same day, the defendant did repay $14,930 to the shop but he claimed that he had discarded the credit card and the EPS receipts contained in the six envelopes. 7.Subsequently, the two owners decided to report the matter to the police and the defendant was later arrested and cautioned on 2 October at his residence in Shau Kei Wan. 8.In a subsequent video recorded interview on the same day, the defendant admitted his wrongdoings and confessed that he had entered the shop using the keys he retained during the employment and took the sales proceeds. 9.In a later stage, the shop discovered that actually there was a miscalculation of the sales proceeds and clarified that the actual sum of the sales proceeds should be $13,692, which is the sum as now appears in the charge. Criminal record and background of the defendant 10.Defendant has a clear criminal record. He is 25. He is still single. He lives with his parents in Shau Kei Wan. He had received education up to Form F level. After he graduated, he has always worked as a salesman. After this incident, he has been working as a casual worker of a transportation company and I was told also that he has been working for the store for more than two years before he was dismissed by the company. 11.In mitigation, his solicitor, Miss Chan, had prayed in aid the fact that the defendant had pleaded guilty, was very remorseful and cooperated with the police. He had also made full confessions and repaid the whole sum to the company. 12.Miss Chan stressed that the defendant is a young offender and the chances of him re-offending is slim. Miss Chan asked the court to consider, perhaps, obtaining a Community Service Order report first before sentencing the defendant. Sentencing considerations 13.The Court of Appeal had laid down tariff for sentencing of a burglary offender. In relation to non-domestic premises such as the present, the usual starting point is 2½ years, which is 30 months. 14.I have given some thought to the mitigation made on behalf of the defendant. 15.This is a very serious burglary offence, in that the defendant retained the key to the shop after leaving employment and, in order to solve his own financial problem, decided to get back to the shop and stole the money and the sales proceeds therein so there is an element of planning and pre-meditation in it. 16.The court can never accept economic reasons for committing a crime like this. 17.Despite the strong mitigation urged on behalf of the defendant, I am not persuaded that this is a case suitable for Community Service Order. 18.In the end, I consider that only a sentence of immediate custodial sentence is suitable. 19.I, therefore, would use 30 months as starting point. 20.The defendant pleaded guilty which entitles him to the usual one-third discount. 21.I would further, however, reduce the sentence by 4 months, taking into account the defendant’s clear record and the fact that he had volunteered to repay the whole $13,692 to the shop within a short period after the commission of the offence. 22.The sentence is therefore 16 months’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||