HKSAR v. Zheng Xinrong

DCCC 712/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 712 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to the burglary of the container office in Sun On Construction Site, Wan Po Road, Area 77, Tseung Kwan O, N.T. (the “Site”).

2.The Site was fenced off by metal board (around 2 metres high).  Sun On Engineering Company (“Sun On”) had a container office in the Site (the “Container Office”).  At around 4:30 p.m., the worker of Sun On left the Site after securing it.  At around 8:35 a.m. on 9 April 2012, it was found that whilst the door of the Container Office had remained intact and locked, one of the windows of the Container Office was broken whereas another was taken down and left outside the Container Office.  There were prized marks on the window frame (cost of repair around HK$6,000). 

3.There were signs of ransacking in the Container Office.  Found missing were 3 computers, 3 computer monitors, 1 notebook computer, 4 digital cameras, 2 dumpy levels (total worth HK$64,500) and a roll of electric wire.     

4.On the same day, 3 computer cases (being the casings of the 3 missing computers), the 2 computer monitors, and the roll of electric wire were recovered nearby.  A screwdriver and a white labour glove of unknown source were found nearby. 

5.Two fingerprints were lifted from the window panel inside the Container Office, one of which matched the right forefinger of the Defendant. 

6.The Defendant was arrested on 21 June 2014 when he entered Hong Kong at Lo Wu Terminal. 

7.In a subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, he said as follows:

(1) He came to Hong Kong 1 to 2 days before 8 April 2012, the date of the offence;

(2) At nighttime on 8 April 2012, he was walking aimlessly around the sea area near the Site when he saw a window of the Container Office broken and taken down. Therefore he climbed into the Container Office through the broken window;

(3) There were signs of ransacking in the Container Office;

(4) He stayed in the Container Office for around 10 minutes and opened some drawers to see if there was anything to take. He took a cigarette lighter and left through the broken window.

8.The travel record reveals that he had entered Hong Kong on 7 April 2012 and left on 26 May 2012. 

Mitigation

9.He is 33 years of age, a Mainland resident.  He lives with his parents and a son in the Mainland.  He has been divorced.  He had a record for attempted theft which he committed on the same day after the present offence.  He was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment.  

10.His solicitor informs me that after he had spotted the broken window on the Container Office, he walked to the seaside part of the fence and managed to find an opening to sneak in.  He had removed the 3 computer, the 3 computer monitors, the notebook computer, the 4 digital cameras, the 2 dumpy levels and the roll of electric wire from the Container Office.  Eventually he used the screwdriver brought along to dismantle the hard discs from each of the 3 computers.  He discarded all other items in the bush outside the Site.  It is possible that some passers-by had taken away some of the items left there after his departure.   He later sold the 3 hard discs for $1,500 in total in Sham Shui Po.    

11.His solicitor asks me to adopt the conventional starting point for non-domestic burglary. 

Sentencing guidelines

12.In A.G. v. Lui Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215, the Court of Appeal states that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises shall be 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age.

13.In HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing, CACC450/2000, Keith JA explains what is included in the starting point for burglary as follows:

9. The conventional starting-point of 2½ years’ imprisonment for the burglary of non-domestic premises relates to burglaries with no aggravating or mitigating features. Such burglaries will involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point.

Sentencing this defendant

14.I take a starting point of 2 ½ years.  I give a one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  There are no other mitigating factors.  His sentence is 20 months.