HKSAR v. Jaitrongdee Israysuon also known as Yiu Kwai Chung

DCCC 118/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.118 OF 2015

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

----------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
----------------------------

Charges and facts

1.The defendant pleads guilty to 7 charges.  The 1^st to the 6^th Charges were burglaries of shops or restaurants, as the case may be, on the ground floor of either Mercury Street in North Point, Hollywood Road, or Elgin Street in Central, in the small hours between 14 and 15 October 2014.  Cash sums ranging from $40,000 to $280.70 were stolen, $91,238.70 in total, apart from property of insignificant value.

2.The 7^th Charge was criminal damage of the door of a restaurant in Elgin Street on 15 October 2014.  He had prized at its door and the door of the adjacent shop when the burglary alarm system sounded.  He then walked down Elgin Street.  Two plainclothes police officers revealed their police identity preceding a search of his rucksack.  He drew out an 11.5-inch screwdriver to attack them.  They warned him with their batons ready for defence.  After a chase, he was subdued and found in possession of the following:

(1) The 11.5-inch screwdriver, a torch, and $6,591.60 cash on him;

(2) 3 plastic plates on him;

(3) 1 wooden stick in his rucksack;

(4) 2 screwdrivers each of about 10 inches long in his rucksack;

(5) $52,898.40 cash in a set in his rucksack;

(6) $12,526.80 cash in another set in his rucksack.

3.Forensic examinations indicated that the 11.5-inch screwdriver had been used in the 5^th burglary and the criminal damage respectively; one of the plastic plates and the wooden stick found on him were related to the 5^th burglary.

4.DNA examinations indicated that he had touched 2 beverage cans in the premises of the 2^nd burglary.  Fingerprint examinations indicated that he had also touched a plastic box there which contained some cash. 

5.DNA and fingerprint examinations indicated that he had touched a beverage can in the premises of the 3^rd burglary. 

6.Fingerprint examinations indicated that he had touched the cash registers in the 5^th and the 6^th burglaries respectively. 

7.The victims’ loss, $91,238.70 in total, has been fully compensated for either (in the sub-total of $31,407)[1] by insurance or (in the sub-total of $59,980.70) from the money seized from the Defendant, as the case may be. 

Mitigation

8.The Defendant is now 40 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated up to P. 4 level.  Both his parents had passed away.  He had served time in the prison for various criminal offences.  He had no previous record for burglary or criminal damage. 

Sentencing considerations

9.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. 

Sentencing the Defendant

10.He had committed 6 burglaries within 2 days.  Sizeable sums of cash were stolen.  I would have aggravated the sentence but for the victims’ having received full compensation.  Part of the actual loss, $31,258 in total, had been shouldered by the insurance companies.  This is not a quantum for aggravation of the sentence.  As the starting point, I take 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for each burglary and 12 months for the criminal damage, the 7^th Charge.  Except for the one-third discount due to his pleas of guilty, there are no mitigating factors. 

11.By way of totality, I make the following adjustment to the sentences:

(1) 1^st Charge, 20 months;

(2) 2^nd to 6^th Charges, 3 months of the 20 months each consecutive to other sentences;

(3) 7^th Charge, 1 month of the 8 months to be consecutive to other sentences.

12.The overall sentence is 36 months.