A A
DCCC328/2010
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 328 OF 2010
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Wong Wai Keung
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: H H Judge Browne
Date: 5 May 2010 at 3.09 pm
H Present: Ms Chan Sze Yan, PP of the Department of Justice, for H
HKSAR
Mr Wong Chi Kit, Peter instructed by Messrs Cheung,
I Chan & Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, I
for the Defendant
J Offence: (1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) J
(2) & (3) Theft (盜竊罪)
(4) Misleading a police officer (提供虛假資料誤導警務人員)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges.
O O
2. The 1st charge is one of burglary. The particulars of
P the offence are that on 15 October, he entered the bedroom of P
premises at Fu Yuet House in Fu Cheong Estate and stole therein
Q a considerable amount of property valued at $42,400. Q
R R
3. The 2nd and 3rd charges are theft offences committed
on 24 October and 3 November and in each case the theft was of a
S S
mobile phone.
T T
4. The 4th charge is one of misleading a police officer
U contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance. This was U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 1 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
committed on 18 January. The defendant produced a driving
licence in the name of a Man Mun-kit to an officer and claimed
B B
to be that person.
C C
5. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at
D about 6 o’clock in the morning of 15 October, a Madam Wong, who D
is PW1, aged 38, left her residence at Room 507, Fu Yuet House.
E E
Before leaving the premises, she locked the door of her bedroom
and at those premises she left, sleeping in another bedroom, her
F F
17-year-old son.
G G
6. At about noon the same day the defendant and another
H man visited the son and was invited to enter into the premises H
for a casual chat. At 4.30, the son was asked to leave the
I I
premises as the defendant wanted to discuss some private matters
with the man he brought along. Somewhat surprisingly, the son
J J
agreed to that and the defendant and the male remained at the
K
premises. K
L 7. At about 6 pm, the son returned to find that the L
premises had been burgled. He found that the door of his
M mother’s bedroom and the doors of the wardrobe had been prised M
open. Stolen from within was a camera, various items of
N N
jewellery, some cash and three wristwatches. The matter was
reported to the police and two impressions of the defendant’s
O O
left palm were found on the drawer of the wardrobe. Two of the
P diamond rings were pawned for $1,500 by the defendant at a P
pawnshop in Shanghai Street on 15 October.
Q Q
8. The 2nd charge, the facts of that charge are that at
R R
3 o’clock on the afternoon of 24 October in a car park at Lai
Kok Estate in Sham Shui Po, the victim in this case, who was
S S
aged 12, was stopped by the defendant. He asked the victim if he
T could borrow his mobile phone, the victim agreed and the T
defendant then ran off with the phone. The defendant was later
U positively identified by the victim at an identity parade. U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 2 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
9. The victim of the 3rd charge was a former friend of
B B
the defendant. He is aged 19 and had known the defendant since
C 2006. On 3 November, they were at a games centre when the C
defendant borrowed the mobile phone of the victim. Ten minutes
D later, the victim realised the defendant had not returned the D
phone to him and the defendant was out of contact since then.
E E
That victim positively identified the defendant at an
identification parade.
F F
G 10. On 18 January in the afternoon the defendant was G
intercepted by a police officer at an MTR in Mong Kok. He was
H stopped when he attempted to use a children’s discount ticket at H
the station and he was asked for proof of identity. The
I I
defendant produced an expired driving licence in the name of a
Man Mun-ki and claimed he was that person.
J J
K
11. The second officer arrived and the defendant again K
produced the driving licence and claimed he was Man Mun-ki.
L Since he failed to produce any valid proof of identity, he was L
taken to the police station for further investigation.
M M
12. After his fingerprints had been taken it was realised
N N
who the defendant actually was and it was realised he was wanted
in connection with the burglary case.
O O
P 13. He was subsequently interviewed in connection with the P
various offences. He remained silent in connection with the
Q burglary offence and admitted the other offences. I am told in Q
relation to the theft offences that the mobile phone in the
R R
2nd charge is worth $1,600 and in the 3rd charge, $3,200. So the
total value of stolen property is slightly in excess of $47,000,
S S
of which only $10,500 worth of property has been recovered.
T T
14. The defendant does not have the advantage of a clear
U record. He has appeared in court on seven previous occasions in U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 3 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
respect of 12 offences. He has previously been convicted of
offences of burglary and theft. There are two burglaries and two
B B
theft convictions recorded on his record. In January 2009, for
C two offences of theft, he was sent to prison for 6 months. C
D 15. The defendant is 22 years of age. He was born in China D
and he was educated to Primary 5 level on the Mainland. He was
E E
employed as a waiter earning some $7,500 per month. I am told he
was last released from prison in May 2009. He is single and
F F
lives with his parents. His father is aged 60 and trades in
G electronic goods, and his mother is 59 and is a cleaning worker. G
He has an elder brother and sister, and a younger brother who
H works as a baker. H
I I
16. I am told that the reason for the commission of the
offence was that the defendant was in financial difficulties. He
J J
owed money from before he was last sentenced to prison and
K
whilst he was in prison the amount of that debt increased to K
$30,000. I am told that he was being pressed by the debt
L collectors, who were visiting his home and harassing him and his L
family. It was under those circumstances that he committed the
M offence. M
N N
17. In mitigation, it was urged upon me that in respect of
the burglary that, although the offence was committed in
O O
domestic premises, the defendant was well aware that there was
P nobody inside the premises and there was therefore no risk of P
any confrontation with any occupants of the household.
Q Q
18. In connection with the two mobile phone thefts. Again,
R R
there was no violence used in the commission of those offences.
However, I note in respect of the 2nd charge the victim was a
S S
youth of only 12 years of age.
T T
19. The defendant had gained access to the burgled
U premises as a friend and he was there on trust and he abused U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 4 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
that trust. The amount of property stolen was in excess of
$40,000; $10,500 dollars worth of property has been recovered
B B
from pawn shops.
C C
20. The defendant has previous convictions for burglary.
D He has two convictions for attempted burglary and one for a full D
burglary. The defendant was only released from prison in May of
E E
last year. I have taken into account the letter written by the
defendant and he asks for leniency and states he is remorseful
F F
for the inconvenience and anxiety that he has brought to his
G family, particularly his mother, who has been visiting him in G
prison.
H H
21. Given the defendant’s record and the amount of
I I
property stolen in this burglary I see no reason to depart from
the usual guideline sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment as a
J J
starting point and that will be reduced to 2 years to reflect
K
the guilty plea. K
L 22. In respect of Charges 2 and 3, I take a starting point L
of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months in each
M case to reflect the guilty plea. For the 4th charge, I take a M
starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to
N N
2 months to reflect the guilty plea.
O O
23. I have considered the question of totality. As regards
P Charge 2, 3 months of that sentence will run consecutive to P
Charge 1. As regards Charge 3, 3 months of that sentence will
Q run consecutive to the previous two sentences. In respect of the Q
4th charge, the 2 months’ sentence of imprisonment will run
R R
consecutive. The total period of imprisonment will therefore be
32 months.
S S
T T
U Browne U
District Judge
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 5 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC328/2010
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 328 OF 2010
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Wong Wai Keung
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: H H Judge Browne
Date: 5 May 2010 at 3.09 pm
H Present: Ms Chan Sze Yan, PP of the Department of Justice, for H
HKSAR
Mr Wong Chi Kit, Peter instructed by Messrs Cheung,
I Chan & Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, I
for the Defendant
J Offence: (1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) J
(2) & (3) Theft (盜竊罪)
(4) Misleading a police officer (提供虛假資料誤導警務人員)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges.
O O
2. The 1st charge is one of burglary. The particulars of
P the offence are that on 15 October, he entered the bedroom of P
premises at Fu Yuet House in Fu Cheong Estate and stole therein
Q a considerable amount of property valued at $42,400. Q
R R
3. The 2nd and 3rd charges are theft offences committed
on 24 October and 3 November and in each case the theft was of a
S S
mobile phone.
T T
4. The 4th charge is one of misleading a police officer
U contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance. This was U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 1 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
committed on 18 January. The defendant produced a driving
licence in the name of a Man Mun-kit to an officer and claimed
B B
to be that person.
C C
5. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at
D about 6 o’clock in the morning of 15 October, a Madam Wong, who D
is PW1, aged 38, left her residence at Room 507, Fu Yuet House.
E E
Before leaving the premises, she locked the door of her bedroom
and at those premises she left, sleeping in another bedroom, her
F F
17-year-old son.
G G
6. At about noon the same day the defendant and another
H man visited the son and was invited to enter into the premises H
for a casual chat. At 4.30, the son was asked to leave the
I I
premises as the defendant wanted to discuss some private matters
with the man he brought along. Somewhat surprisingly, the son
J J
agreed to that and the defendant and the male remained at the
K
premises. K
L 7. At about 6 pm, the son returned to find that the L
premises had been burgled. He found that the door of his
M mother’s bedroom and the doors of the wardrobe had been prised M
open. Stolen from within was a camera, various items of
N N
jewellery, some cash and three wristwatches. The matter was
reported to the police and two impressions of the defendant’s
O O
left palm were found on the drawer of the wardrobe. Two of the
P diamond rings were pawned for $1,500 by the defendant at a P
pawnshop in Shanghai Street on 15 October.
Q Q
8. The 2nd charge, the facts of that charge are that at
R R
3 o’clock on the afternoon of 24 October in a car park at Lai
Kok Estate in Sham Shui Po, the victim in this case, who was
S S
aged 12, was stopped by the defendant. He asked the victim if he
T could borrow his mobile phone, the victim agreed and the T
defendant then ran off with the phone. The defendant was later
U positively identified by the victim at an identity parade. U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 2 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
9. The victim of the 3rd charge was a former friend of
B B
the defendant. He is aged 19 and had known the defendant since
C 2006. On 3 November, they were at a games centre when the C
defendant borrowed the mobile phone of the victim. Ten minutes
D later, the victim realised the defendant had not returned the D
phone to him and the defendant was out of contact since then.
E E
That victim positively identified the defendant at an
identification parade.
F F
G 10. On 18 January in the afternoon the defendant was G
intercepted by a police officer at an MTR in Mong Kok. He was
H stopped when he attempted to use a children’s discount ticket at H
the station and he was asked for proof of identity. The
I I
defendant produced an expired driving licence in the name of a
Man Mun-ki and claimed he was that person.
J J
K
11. The second officer arrived and the defendant again K
produced the driving licence and claimed he was Man Mun-ki.
L Since he failed to produce any valid proof of identity, he was L
taken to the police station for further investigation.
M M
12. After his fingerprints had been taken it was realised
N N
who the defendant actually was and it was realised he was wanted
in connection with the burglary case.
O O
P 13. He was subsequently interviewed in connection with the P
various offences. He remained silent in connection with the
Q burglary offence and admitted the other offences. I am told in Q
relation to the theft offences that the mobile phone in the
R R
2nd charge is worth $1,600 and in the 3rd charge, $3,200. So the
total value of stolen property is slightly in excess of $47,000,
S S
of which only $10,500 worth of property has been recovered.
T T
14. The defendant does not have the advantage of a clear
U record. He has appeared in court on seven previous occasions in U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 3 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
respect of 12 offences. He has previously been convicted of
offences of burglary and theft. There are two burglaries and two
B B
theft convictions recorded on his record. In January 2009, for
C two offences of theft, he was sent to prison for 6 months. C
D 15. The defendant is 22 years of age. He was born in China D
and he was educated to Primary 5 level on the Mainland. He was
E E
employed as a waiter earning some $7,500 per month. I am told he
was last released from prison in May 2009. He is single and
F F
lives with his parents. His father is aged 60 and trades in
G electronic goods, and his mother is 59 and is a cleaning worker. G
He has an elder brother and sister, and a younger brother who
H works as a baker. H
I I
16. I am told that the reason for the commission of the
offence was that the defendant was in financial difficulties. He
J J
owed money from before he was last sentenced to prison and
K
whilst he was in prison the amount of that debt increased to K
$30,000. I am told that he was being pressed by the debt
L collectors, who were visiting his home and harassing him and his L
family. It was under those circumstances that he committed the
M offence. M
N N
17. In mitigation, it was urged upon me that in respect of
the burglary that, although the offence was committed in
O O
domestic premises, the defendant was well aware that there was
P nobody inside the premises and there was therefore no risk of P
any confrontation with any occupants of the household.
Q Q
18. In connection with the two mobile phone thefts. Again,
R R
there was no violence used in the commission of those offences.
However, I note in respect of the 2nd charge the victim was a
S S
youth of only 12 years of age.
T T
19. The defendant had gained access to the burgled
U premises as a friend and he was there on trust and he abused U
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 4 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
that trust. The amount of property stolen was in excess of
$40,000; $10,500 dollars worth of property has been recovered
B B
from pawn shops.
C C
20. The defendant has previous convictions for burglary.
D He has two convictions for attempted burglary and one for a full D
burglary. The defendant was only released from prison in May of
E E
last year. I have taken into account the letter written by the
defendant and he asks for leniency and states he is remorseful
F F
for the inconvenience and anxiety that he has brought to his
G family, particularly his mother, who has been visiting him in G
prison.
H H
21. Given the defendant’s record and the amount of
I I
property stolen in this burglary I see no reason to depart from
the usual guideline sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment as a
J J
starting point and that will be reduced to 2 years to reflect
K
the guilty plea. K
L 22. In respect of Charges 2 and 3, I take a starting point L
of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months in each
M case to reflect the guilty plea. For the 4th charge, I take a M
starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to
N N
2 months to reflect the guilty plea.
O O
23. I have considered the question of totality. As regards
P Charge 2, 3 months of that sentence will run consecutive to P
Charge 1. As regards Charge 3, 3 months of that sentence will
Q run consecutive to the previous two sentences. In respect of the Q
4th charge, the 2 months’ sentence of imprisonment will run
R R
consecutive. The total period of imprisonment will therefore be
32 months.
S S
T T
U Browne U
District Judge
CRT36/5.5.2010/OW 5 DCCC328/2010/Sentence
V V