HKSAR v. Chau Kam Cheong

DCCC 908/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 908 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences of burglary. They all occurred at the Tin Hau Temple in Lei Yue Mun, Kowloon committed in a short space of time between 12 August and 20 August involving small sums of money that were there. Defendant has admitted the facts and I have convicted him.

2.On 20 August, in the evening, the defendant was actually seen to break into the temple using a bamboo stick to prise the doors open.  He was found inside by the police.  Some inquiries by the police established that there had been small sums of money stolen on 12 August and also apparently on the evening of 19 August. 

3.When the defendant was arrested and cautioned, he immediately admitted he was entering the temple, intending to steal, and he said he had also stolen on a previous occasion, and he admitted he had entered the temple in early August, stolen about $200 and then on the evening of 19 August stolen $50.  Now, the defendant admitted those offences and I convicted him on the basis of his admissions. 

4.He is aged 30 years old.  He has some previous convictions for offences such as dealing with dutiable commodities and possession of unlawful goods.  He has been placed on probation, community service and also had a suspended sentence back in 2004. 

5.It was apparent that the defendant has had a past history of psychiatric troubles.  So I obtained both a psychiatric report and a background report on him.  The defendant has since about 2008 had a history of drug-intoxication-induced psychosis and has been since then followed up for mental behavioural disorder due to the use of drugs.  And the psychiatrists opine that the defendant probably had not been taking his medication prior to these offences in August.

6.The background report sums the defendant up by saying he is a sufferer of a mental illness, a gambler and a drug abuser and lives with his parents and says that his mental and addiction problems have taken toll on his life and his work.  The defendant attributes his commission of these offences to his mental confusion and his lack of money.  He is remorseful and wants to go back to work.  His parents have written to me, asking for leniency. 

7.Now, in mitigation, Mr Chan very capably said that I should take into account his remorse here.  The defendant immediately admitted these offences and including the two earlier offences on 12 and 19 August.  They were non‑domestic burglaries committed when the defendant was in the temple in the evening when it was closed and unoccupied. And insofar as burglaries committed described as petty, they were petty in that small amounts of money were taken.  No damage was caused and due to the time at which they were committed, no one was likely to be surprised by him.

8.I must take into account his history of mental problems, that he seems to have been under some financial stress due to gambling losses, and the defendant was seen by the police, in fact to be seen sitting in the temple smoking when he was taken into custody. 

9.Now, the burglary is a serious offence and a non‑domestic burglary committed by a person of clear record can expect a starting point for sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.  Taking into account the factors placed in mitigation, I consider that I can take a lower point for the starting point in respect of these particular offences.  I have taken into account the defendant’s mental difficulties, the nature of the place burgled, the small amounts that the defendant took and the defendant’s desire to be arrested.     

10.I will take a starting point of 24 months in respect of each of the three offences.  I will reduce that to 16 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  I do note that all the offences were committed on different occasions and can potentially be served consecutively.  However, I consider that the overall total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment is sufficient in this case for this defendant.  So I will order all sentences to be run concurrently, and the final sentence will be one of 16 months’ imprisonment.