DCCC 404/ 2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 404 OF 2009
HKSAR
v
LEUNG Siu-sing, Gene D1
CHONG Tsun-in D2
Before: Deputy District Judge Eddie Yip
Date: 18 June 2009 at 10:21am
Present: Mr. Michael Tsang, Public Prosecutor for HKSAR
Mr. Tsang Man Hing Johnson of M/S Tsang, Chan & Woo
assigned by DLA, for D1
Mr. Yeung Kam Yuen Roderick of M/S Yeung & Chan assigned
by DLA, for D2
Charges: 1)- 3) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
_____________________
Reasons for Sentence
_____________________
Charges and facts
1. D1 pleads guilty to 3 charges of burglary. The 1st and the 2nd
charges relate to him singly whereas the 3rd charge relate to him and D2.
D2 also pleads guilty to the 3rd charge. All 3 charges relate to burglary of
the Tung Wah Group of Hospital Tsui Tsin Tong School, at 25 Waterfall
Bay Road, Aberdeen (“School”). The offences took place on 3 divers
occasions, namely 21st January 2009 (1st charge), 25th January 2009 (2nd
charge), and 12th February 2009 (3rd charge).
2. In the 1st charge, the glass window of a staff room was broken.
The lock of the door was prized. From inside the room, some properties
were moved to outside the room. No properties were stolen. Fingerprints
were lifted from the door. The fingerprints matched those of D1. It cost
$500 to replace the window glass.
3. In the 2nd charge, from the School were stolen the following
properties, amounting to a value of $32,098 in total:
(1) 2 notebook computers;
(2) 7 digital cameras;
(3) 1 MP3 player;
(4) about $100 cash.
4. In the 3rd charge, from the School were stolen the following
properties:
(1) 1 video camera;
(2) 1 remote control;
(3) 1 set of electric wire;
(4) 3 digital cameras;
(5) 1 plastic box containing $79 cash;
(6) 1 bag;
(7) 1 pair of walkie-talkies;
(8) 1 memory card reader;
(9) 1 notebook computer;
(10) 1 computer mouse pad;
2
(11) 1 speaker;
(12) 1 battery cell;
(13) 1 bottle of correction fluid;
(14) 1 purse containing $181 cash.
5. As the School had been burgled on the 2 prior occasions, the police
mounted an operation in the vicinity. In the early hours on the date of the
3rd offence, D1 and D2 sneaked into the School. The police approached
them. They tried to flee but in vain. Those 14 items of stolen properties
listed under the 3rd charge were recovered from a body search on D1 and
D2.
6. After arrest and caution, D1 admitted the commission of the 1 st and
the 2nd offences by himself and the 3rd offence with D2. He had used
scissors and a cutter to prize the door. He had sold the stolen properties
in the 2nd charge for $1,204 to a hawker in Apliu Street, Shamshuipo. D2
admitted the commission of the 3rd offence with D1.
Mitigation put forward
7. D1 is 17 years of age. He has a clear record. His parents separated
more than 10 years ago. His father was busy working as a plumber.
There was little time for the supervision and guidance of him. He quit
school before completing F.2. He did various unskilled jobs. He
frequented game centres, public parks, and football fields. Sometimes he
stayed out overnight. He was jobless at the time of the arrest. He
committed the present offences out of greed.
8. D2 is 17 years of age. He has a clear record but 3 instances of
Superintendent’s Discretion in 2006 each for theft. His parents were
3
doting on him. They fail to supervise or guide him properly. He has
been studying in F.4 at the time of the offence. He has quite a lot of
commendations for performance in extra-curricular and community
activities. However, he has equally a lot of mingling and late or
overnight merriments with bad peers.
9. D1’s and D2’s respective solicitors have asked me to call for
Probation Report and Community Service Report apart from any other
reports. I order such Reports with a clear indication that they are unlikely
sentencing options.
Sentencing principles
Sentencing 17-year old defendants
10. Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221,
states that:
(1) No court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to
imprisonment unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing
with such person is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether
any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate the court
shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take
into account any information before the court which is relevant to the
character of such person and his physical and mental condition.
(1A) This section shall not apply to a person who has been convicted of any
offence which is declared to be an excepted offence by Schedule 3.
The offence of burglary in the present case is not an excepted offence.
Imprisonment shall remain the last option.
Prior sentencing options
11. Apart from the aforesaid Probation Report and Community Service
Report, I have also called for Training Centre, Detention Centre, and
Rehabilitation Centre together with Suitability Report from the Young
4
Offender Assessment Panel for each of D1 and D2. The Reports do not
recommend probation or community service but recommend both D1 and
D2 to Detention Centre.
12. Section 4(1) of the Detention Centre Ordinance, Cap. 239, states
that:
Where a person who is apparently a young offender is found guilty of a
relevant offence the court may, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances
of the case and having regard to his character and previous conduct it is in his
interest and the public interest that he should undergo a period of detention in
a detention centre, in lieu of imposing any other sentence, make a detention
order against him.
The sentence I pass
13. In D1’s case, I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the
community and that having regard to his character and previous conduct,
and to the circumstances of the offences, it is expedient for his
reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a
period of training in Detention Centre. This is the sentence for all 3
charges he faces.
14. In D2’s case, I understand that he wishes to be put on probation.
His wish is only one of the factors, indeed not a major one, for my
consideration. He is no doubt an intelligent but wayward child.
I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having
regard to his character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of
the offence, it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of
crime that he should undergo a period of training in Detention Centre.
This is the sentence for the charge he faces.
EDDIE YIP
DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE
5