A A
B B
DCCC 491 & 972/2020
(Consolidated)
C C
[2021] HKDC 575
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
F CRIMINAL CASE NOS 491 AND 972 OF 2020 F
G G
----------------------------
H HKSAR H
v
I I
WONG NOK YIN (D1)
J CHUNG CHIN MING (D2) J
SING MING FUNG (D3)
K K
CHAN KA YEE (D4)
L KO SHING YUEN (D5) L
----------------------------
M M
N N
Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court
O
Date: 11 May 2021 O
Present: Mr Newman Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
P P
Mr Frederick Fong, instructed by Littlewoods, assigned by the
Q Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant Q
Miss Mandy Wong Lok Man, instructed by Raymond Lam &
R R
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd
S defendant S
Mr Yeung Yeuk Chuen, instructed by KCL, assigned by the
T T
Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd defendant
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Mr Chong Tin Chun, instructed by A Lee & Partners, assigned
C by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 4th defendant C
Mr Paul Leung Po Sang, instructed by Collin Ng & Co,
D D
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 5th defendant
E Offence(s): [1]-[2] Burglary (入屋犯法罪) E
[4] Failure to produce proof of identity on demand (未能在規
F F
定下出示身分證明文件)
G G
[5] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause
H (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押) H
I I
---------------------------------------
J REASONS FOR SENTENCE J
---------------------------------------
K K
L 1. The five defendants (D1-D5) pleaded guilty before me to L
various charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.
M M
N 2. D1, D2, D3 and D5 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 of Burglary; N
and D1, D2 and D4 pleaded guilty to Charge 2 of Burglary. Both charges
O O
were preferred under section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap
P 210. P
Q Q
3. Particulars of Charge 1 are that D1, D2, D3 and D5, on
R 30 November 2019, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, R
having entered as trespassers part of a building known as Room 1601,
S S
th
CELLTRONIK HOTEL, Flat A4, 16 Floor, Block A, Mirador Mansion,
T T
Nos 54-64B Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, stole therein one
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
MacBook Pro, one computer carrying case, one backpack, cash of ¥700
C Renminbi, one United States passport, one power bank, one smartphone C
and one portable speaker.
D D
E 4. Particulars of Charge 2 are that D1, D2 and D4, on E
18 December 2019, in Hong Kong, having entered as trespassers part of a
F F
building known as Room 801, PARIS HOTEL, No 129 Temple Street, Yau
G Ma Tei, Kowloon, stole therein one television, one antenna, one cable, one G
television wall mount, one remote, 4 screws, one hairdryer, one plastic box
H H
and one towel.
I I
5. In addition, D3 pleaded guilty to Charge 4 of Failure to
J J
produce proof of identity on demand, contrary to section 17C(3) of the
K Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. Particulars are that he, on 20 January K
2020, outside Ground Floor, No 21A Lock Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon,
L L
in Hong Kong, being a person who is required to have with him proof of
M identity, failed to produce on demand proof of his identity for inspection M
by a police officer, namely, Police Constable 26454.
N N
O 6. Lastly, D4 also pleaded guilty to Charge 5 of Failing to O
surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1)
P P
and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. Particulars are that
Q she, on 9 September 2020, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted to bail, Q
without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as had been
R R
appointed by a court.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. Prosecution asked that Charge 3 of Theft against D1 be left
C on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the C
Court of Appel. I so ordered.
D D
E Facts admitted by all defendants E
F F
Charge 1 – Burglary against D1, D2, D3 and D5
G G
8. PW1 visited Hong Kong on 29 November 2019 and checked
H H
into Room 1601 of Celltronik Hotel (“the guesthouse”) on 16/F of Mirador
I Mansion for two nights. Room 1601 adjoined the common corridor of 16/F I
with a ventilation window in between. At about 8 pm on 30 November
J J
2019, he left the guesthouse after locking his door. When he returned at
K about 7 am the next day, he discovered that his property listed in the charge K
to the total value of $11,929 was missing.
L L
M 9. What happened was, on 30 November 2019, at 11:34 pm, after M
knocking on the main door of the guesthouse with no response, D3 climbed
N N
through the ventilation window of one of the rooms therein namely
O Room 1601 with help from D5 who lifted him up. This ventilation window O
is located between the room and the public corridor of 16/F. Shortly
P P
afterwards, the door of the guesthouse was opened from the inside and D1,
Q D2 and D5 and a male WP entered through the door. Within a minute, they Q
all left, with D3 holding a small black bag and PW1’s black backpack, and
R R
with D5 holding PW1’s blue computer carrying case. D5 passed the blue
S case to WP. D3 went his separate way. The others went down to Nathan S
Road at the location where D2’s car was parked. Several minutes later, D3
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
joined them for a brief chat. D1 and D2 then left by car while the rest
C walked off. C
D D
Charge 2 – Burglary against D1, D2 and D4
E E
10. Paris Hotel was located in Temple Street. Ms Tsoi had
F F
booked Room 801 for one night on 16 December 2019 but later told the
G hotel staff that someone else would pay to extend the stay. At 12:55 am G
on 18 December 2019, PW3 a staff member received a call at the front desk
H H
from Room 801 saying there was someone shouting for help [from the
I 10/F1]. Staff went [to Room 8012] at once but no one answered the door. I
Staff then entered the room with a keycard and found the items belonging
J J
to the room and listed in the charge to the total value of $4,000 missing.
K K
11. What happened was D1, D2 and D4 who had no right to be
L L
there had entered Room 801 using a keycard and carried out of the room
M all the above-mentioned items and took the stairs to 6/F. They then took M
the lift to G/F and left via the front door.
N N
O 12. At 11:10 am on the same day, D2 and an unknown male O
approached the hotel with all the missing property and claimed to be
P P
returning the same on behalf of their friend who had taken it for repair.
Q They offered to help mount the TV back on the wall but were told a police Q
report had already been made.
R R
S S
T T
1
This is an addendum.
2
This is a corrigendum from the word “there”.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. In the afternoon of the same day, D1 and D2 were intercepted
C separately in the vicinity and were arrested for Charges 1 and 2. Under C
caution, D1 stated that he had gone to the guesthouse at Mirador Mansion
D D
to look for a friend and he had stolen the TV from Paris Hotel to prank
E someone. Under caution, D2 stated that he had gone to the guesthouse at E
Mirador Mansion with 4 friends to chat with someone named “Ah Moon”;
F F
and he and D1 had taken the TV from Paris Hotel to prank Ms Tsoi because
G the latter had owed him $2,000. G
H H
Charge 4 – Failure to produce proof of ID against D3
I I
14. At 5:30 am on 20 January 2020, D3 was stopped on exit from
J J
a building in Lock Road, TST. D3 failed to produce his HKID card on
K demand and claimed to have lost his wallet several days ago and claimed K
that he had reported it missing at Kwai Chung Police Station. However,
L L
no such loss had been reported. D3 was arrested.
M M
Arrest of D4
N N
O 15. D4 was arrested on 27 December 2019 and stated under O
caution for Charge 2 that she and her friends had taken away the TV to
P P
prank someone named “Ah Gai” and her friends had already returned the
Q TV to the hotel. Q
R R
Arrest of D5
S S
16. D5 was arrested on 13 August 2020 and stated under caution
T T
for Charge 1 that D2 had asked him to go there to collect a debt that day.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C Cautioned interviews C
D D
D1
E E
17. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D1 stated
F F
that D2 had asked him to go to the guesthouse together to help collect a
G $10,000 debt from a Pakistani male “Ah Moon”; that D1, D2, D3 and D5 G
and another male went to the guesthouse together; they could not reach
H H
Ah Moon; D3 climbed into the guesthouse via the window and opened the
I door from the inside; D3 and D5 rummaged through the tenant’s I
belongings inside Room 1601; D3 took someone’s backpack which
J J
contained a laptop; D1 later left on D2’s car while D3, D5 and the male left
K by taxi. K
L L
18. Regarding Charge 2, D1 under caution stated that his friend
M Tsoi and her boyfriend D3 had rented Room 801 but D3 had not paid to M
extend the stay beyond 12 noon of 17 December 2010 for use by D1; but
N N
D1 somehow obtained the keycard from D3; he was not happy with D3
O who was supposed to extend the stay; he therefore asked D2 to help prank O
D3 by taking away the TV because it was booked under Tsoi’s name; they
P P
together with D4 entered Room 801 using the keycard, dismantled the TV
Q and took it away with other items from the room. Q
R R
D2
S S
19. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D2 stated
T T
that Ah Moon owed him money so he decided to go to find him at the
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
guesthouse with D1, D3, D5 and another male; no one answered the door
C so D3 climbed through the window, entered the room and opened the door C
for the rest of them to enter the guesthouse.
D D
E 20. Regarding Charge 2, D2 under caution stated that since Tsoi E
owed him $2,000, he suggested that D1 and D4 should prank Tsoi by taking
F F
away the items from the hotel room; it was D1 and him who dismantled
G the TV using a screwdriver and they stole the other items; D4 then called G
the front desk saying that someone at 10/F was shouting for help in order
H H
to distract the staff while they made good the escape; later D2 and a friend
I returned the items to the hotel. I
J J
D3
K K
21. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D3 stated
L L
that he received a call from D2 asking him to find Ah Moon with D1, D5
M and another male; they then met at Mirador Mansion; no one answered the M
door so D2 asked him to climb into the guesthouse through the ventilation
N N
window; he did so with help of D5 and opened the door from the inside;
O then D1, D2, D5 and another male entered the guesthouse and searched for O
items there; he took a backpack containing a laptop and D5 took away a
P P
bag; he left alone by taxi but later met the others outside Mirador Mansion;
Q D5 sold the laptop for $1,500 and gave the money to D2 who gave him Q
$500.
R R
S 22. Regarding Charge 4, D3 stated under caution he had lost his S
HKID card in mid-December 2019; that he had made an appointment to
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
apply for a replacement at the Immigration Department in January 2020
C but he did not attend the appointment in the end. C
D D
D4
E E
23. During a cautioned interview, regarding Charge 2, D4 stated
F F
that in the afternoon of 17 December 2019, D3 gave the room keycard to
G D1 who passed it to her; she together with D1 and D2 then went to G
Room 801 and took away the TV to prank D3 and Tsoi as they had owed
H H
D2 money; D1 and D2 dismantled the TV using a screwdriver after which
I she called the front desk saying that someone on 10/F had shouted for help I
so as to distract the staff while they made good their escape; she discovered
J J
in the afternoon of 18 December 2019 that D2 had returned the TV to the
K hotel. K
L L
D5
M M
24. During a cautioned interview, regarding Charge 1, D5 stated
N N
that he received a call from D2 asking him to meet at Mirador Mansion to
O collect a debt; he went and met up with D1 and D2; the trio went up to 16/F O
but failed to enter the guesthouse; D3 and another maile arrived; D3 opened
P P
the ventilation window; he lifted D3 up; D3 climbed through the window
Q and opened the guesthouse door from the inside; he entered Room 1601 Q
and took a look; D3 and another male took two bags away from the room;
R R
the male had passed him the bag that the male had earlier taken; he opened
S the bag and saw a passport and a laptop; he and D3 later put the two bags S
into D2’s car.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 5 – Failure to surrender to custody against D4
C C
25. A day namely 9 September 2020 had been appointed for D4
D D
to appear at the District Court for mention for this case. She failed to
E appear and so a warrant of arrest was issued against her. On 27 September E
2020, she was arrested inside a flat in Cheung Sha Wan for an unrelated
F F
case. She was therefore re-arrested for the present case.
G G
26. Under caution, D4 admitted that she had simply forgotten to
H H
attend court on 9 September and that she had not surrendered herself to the
I District Court to explain her absence. I
J J
Criminal records
K K
27. D1 has 4 criminal convictions but none similar. He has not
L L
been imprisoned before.
M M
28. D2 has 12 criminal convictions 4 of which are Theft
N N
Ordinance offences though not burglary the last of which was in 2015.
O O
29. D3 has 9 previous convictions 2 of which were for thefts (both
P P
in 2013).
Q Q
30. D4 has 2 previous convictions none similar. She has been
R R
imprisoned before.
S S
31. D5 has 2 previous convictions none similar.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
32. D1 is aged 20 (18 at the time of the offences), educated to F3,
D D
was a transportation worker earning a $20,000 salary. He is the only child
E and lived with his relatives in public housing. E
F F
33. D2 is aged 39 (38 at the time of the offences), educated to A-
G level in UK, was a casual transportation worker earning a $10,000 to G
$15,000 salary. He is married with three children and before being
H H
remanded lived with family in Tai Kok Tsui.
I I
34. D3 is aged 24 (23 at the time of the offences), educated to P6
J J
and completed vocational training, was a casual transportation worker with
K daily salary of $700 and earning about $13,000 per month. He resided with K
his mother and maternal uncle in public housing in Shek Lei Pui.
L L
M 35. D4 is aged 20 (19 at the time of the offences), educated to F4, M
was a salesperson. She resided with her mother, stepfather and two
N N
younger sisters in public housing in Shek Kip Mei.
O O
36. D5 is aged 25 (23 at the time of the offence), educated to high
P P
school level in the Mainland, was a cook earning $20,000 a month. His
Q parents are divorced and he was living alone in a guesthouse in TST. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
Mitigation
C C
D1
D D
E 37. Mr Frederick Fong of counsel assigned by the Director of E
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1. The following is a summary of the
F F
mitigation submissions.
G G
38. D1 is single. His previous convictions were non-similar ones
H H
and were in 2015 when he was aged 14, and thus should be disregarded.
I I
39. Charge 2 involved items of little resale value which were
J J
offered to be returned on the same day.
K K
40. D1 is remorseful as evidenced by his frank admissions.
L L
M 41. Both premises involved were domestic premises. The starting M
point for burglary of this type is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. D1 pleads
N N
guilty in time and is entitled to 1/3 discount. D1 seeks a lenient sentence
O and asks the court to take into account the totality principle. O
P P
42. Upon seeing the DC/TC suitability report, D1 agrees to the
Q report and accepts the recommendation therein. Mr Fong added that D1 Q
has been detained for 16-17 months already.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
D2
C C
43. Ms Mandy Wong of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
D D
Aid mitigated on behalf of D2. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
44. D2’s two daughters (both 12) are F1 students while his
G youngest son (5) is studying in K3. In 2015, D2 and his wife separated. G
The wife left the family and became uncontactable. All the children then
H H
came under the care of D2 with assistance provided by D2’s mother (50).
I D2 was the sole breadwinner. I
J J
45. The greatest mitigation is D2’s pleas. No heavy
K housebreaking implements were used. No property damage was made K
during the offences. D2 was not disguising himself which shows the
L L
burglaries were not well-planned or premeditated. D2 accepts that PW1’s
M loss of personal belongings caused great inconvenience and financial loss M
to him.
N N
O 46. Charge 2 is a prank. D2 took the initiative to return the stolen O
property within 12 hours thus mitigating his misdeeds and causing no loss
P P
to the hotel.
Q Q
47. D2 has no previous for burglary and the last dishonesty-
R R
related conviction was in 2015. D2 asks that he be not treated as a
S persistent offender. He promises to turn over a new leaf on release. S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
48. It is accepted that according to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003]
C 2 HKLRD 338, a burglary of a hotel room should attract at least the same C
sentence as that of domestic premises, and the sentence of 3 years is
D D
appropriate.
E E
49. D2 asks for a lenient sentence and asks the court to consider
F F
the totality principle.
G G
50. For Charge 1, there is nothing to suggest D2 was the leader of
H H
the burglary.
I I
51. For Charge 2, it is acknowledged that under caution, D2 said
J J
it was him who suggested that D1 and D4 to prank Tsoi by taking away the
K items from the hotel room booked by her. K
L L
D3
M M
52. Mr YC Yeung of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
N N
Aid mitigated on behalf of D3. The following is a summary of the
O mitigation submissions. O
P P
53. D3 pleaded guilty to Charges 1 & 4. Mr Yeung also referred
Q to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing, supra. However, D3 asks the court to adopt a Q
lower starting point than 3 years on the grounds that he did not have prior
R R
knowledge that the place was a hotel room; that there was no premeditation
S to burgle; and no tools, mask or gloves were used. D3 asks that despite it S
was a multi-party burglary, a starting point of not more than 3 years would
T T
be sufficient because there was no prior agreement to burgle. After
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
referring to HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259, Mr Yeung
C asks the court to consider that D3 was an opportunistic burglar on the basis C
that D3 only re-entered Room 1601 to steal after first exit when he had
D D
seen others had taken something from Room 1601.
E E
54. For Charge 4, D3 asks for a fine not more than in the
F F
thousands (which can be paid within 7 days), or alternatively, a short
G concurrent or substantially concurrent prison term. G
H H
55. D3 asks for leniency.
I I
D4
J J
K 56. Mr Chong Tin Chun of counsel assigned by the Director of K
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D4. The following is a summary of the
L L
mitigation submissions.
M M
57. D4 pleaded guilty to Charges 2 and 5. D4 has a son (8 months)
N N
and has been taken care of by social worker since birth. D4 was addicted
O to ICE since 2018 and did not have a good relationship with her family. It O
is submitted that D4 now has no drug addiction.
P P
Q 58. D4 did not have any personal gain in Charge 2. In relation to Q
Charge 5, D4 simply forgot to attend court.
R R
S 59. D4 wants to have a career in taking care of toddlers and has S
completed half of an elementary toddler course. D4 wants to get back her
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
son after discharge and takes care of him herself. Her parents are willing
C to help in that regard. C
D D
60. Mr Chong also referred to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing, supra.
E Mr Chong referred to HKSAR v Lam Chi Kwan, CACC 105/2018, and E
submits that for a case of failing to surrender to custody lasting 10 years,
F F
the starting point was 6 months’ imprisonment.
G G
61. D4 is now a mother and wants to start a new leaf. She has re-
H H
established relationship with her family. Mr Chong asks the court to adopt
I a lower starting point than 3 years for Charge 2 on the basis that there was I
no invasion of a hotel tenant’s room, nor are there any particular
J J
aggravating factors. D4 was not the mastermind. All the stolen property
K have been returned and there was no loss to the hotel. K
L L
62. On Charge 5, Mr Chong asks the court for a starting point of
M lower than 6 months on the basis that D4 did not willfully disobey a court M
order and the time was only 18 days.
N N
O 63. Mr Chong asks for concurrent or partially concurrent O
sentences after taking into account the totality principle.
P P
Q 64. D4 submits a mitigation letter written by herself. The contents Q
generally are that the love and care extended by her mother caused her to
R R
realize the damage she has done to her mother and herself; that she asks for
S a lenient sentence so as to facilitate rehabilitation. S
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
65. Upon seeing the TC suitability report, except for one sentence,
C D4 agrees to the report. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Chong submitted C
that D4 did not know she was about 2 months into her pregnancy at the
D D
time of the burglary offence.
E E
D5
F F
G 66. Mr Paul PS Leung of counsel assigned by the Director of G
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D5. The following is a summary of the
H H
mitigation submissions.
I I
67. D5 pleaded guilty to Charge 1, the only charge he faces. D5
J J
has no similar records.
K K
68. D5 initially intended to help a friend D2 to collect a debt at
L L
the premises out of friendship. Nonetheless, on arrival, D5 learnt it was
M not the case and he went ahead and followed the instructions of D2 without M
any reward or promise of reward. D5 simply assisted D3 to climb into the
N N
hotel room. D5 did not use any tools. D5 did not keep any valuable stolen
O property. D5 did not conceal his identity hence it could be said that it was O
an opportunistic offence without sophistication or premeditation. D5 is
P P
fully remorseful which can be reflected by his full confession on arrest. D5
Q will not reoffend. Q
R R
69. D5 knows that the starting point for a hotel room burglary was
S 3 years’ imprisonment. D5 asks for a lenient sentence. S
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
70. D5 submits a mitigation letter written by his mother. The
C contents generally are that a lenient sentence is asked for so that D5 could C
start afresh.
D D
E Detention and Training Centres Suitability Report on D1 E
F F
71. The conclusion on D1 is that he is mentally and physically fit
G for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre; that he is G
considered more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre where he
H H
could undergo a period of strict disciplinary training followed by statutory
I supervision. I
J J
Training Centre Suitability Report on D4
K K
72. The conclusion on D4 is that since it is the Medical Officer’s
L L
opinion that D4 is a drug dependent and medically unfit to fully participate
M in the Training Centre programme, she is not considered suitable for M
detention in a Training Centre.
N N
O Sentence O
P P
73. I have considered all the mitigation submissions. I will not
Q treat D2 as a persistent offender. As regards D4, I do not accept the Q
submission that she did not know she was pregnant at the time of the
R R
commission of the Charge 2 offence.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
74. The normal starting point for a hotel room burglary is 3 years’
C imprisonment. In this case, I cannot ignore the aggravating factor of more C
than one person acting in concert under both Charges 1 and 2.
D D
E 75. I have regard to the facts of the case including what were said E
by the defendants under caution.
F F
G 76. In respect of Charge 1, it does appear that the burglary was G
not pre-planned but on the other hand it was not opportunistic either. In
H H
fact, particular effort had to be exerted in order to gain entry by climbing
I in through a window with the help of another person. Fortunately, there I
was no damage to the window or lock of the premises. I will adopt a lower
J J
basic starting point of 2 ½ years for this burglary charge. For the
K aggravating factor of acting in concert, I will add 3 months. Although D2 K
appeared to be the convenor of the group for the purpose of collecting a
L L
debt, it is unclear from the objective facts who was the ringleader of the
M burglary. So I will treat everyone as equal members of the joint enterprise. M
N N
77. In respect of Charge 2, the fact that the relevant defendants
O pleaded guilty to the charge suggests that they admitted to having an O
intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property involved. The
P P
motive appears to be, as least as far as D2 (who admitted under caution to
Q be the instigator) was concerned, to get Tsoi into trouble. The decision to Q
return the stolen property only came at a later stage. I am satisfied that the
R R
mastermind of this burglary was D2. I take into account the fact that there
S was no damage to the hotel room and there was in the end no loss of S
property. I will again take 2 ½ years as the basic starting point. For the
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
aggravating factor of acting in concert, I will add 3 months. As against D2
C for his singular role, I will add a further 3 months. C
D D
78. In respect of Charge 4 against D3 only, the offence does not
E carry an imprisonment penalty. I will impose a fine of $1,000 after plea. E
F F
79. In respect of Charge 5 against D4 only, I will adopt a low
G starting point of 4 ½ months. G
H H
80. As against D1, because of his youth and because of a
I favourable Detention Centre Report, I am minded to order that he be I
detained in a Detention Centre. I can see no mitigating factors which could
J J
persuade me to impose an even lighter sentence on him.
K K
81. All the other defendants will be entitled to a 1/3 discount on
L L
prison terms as a result of their timely pleas. There are no other mitigating
M factors of sufficient weight to warrant a further reduction. M
N N
82. D1, D2, D4 face more than one imprisonment term. I will
O consider the principle of totality in their cases. The offences are completely O
separate in their respective cases and hence the resulting sentences ought,
P P
subject to totality, to be served consecutively.
Q Q
83. I will impose the following individual sentences.
R R
S (All defendants, please stand) S
T T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
D1
C C
84. For Charge 1, I order that D1, being a person apparently under
D D
21 years of age, be detained in a Detention Centre. For Charge 2, I make
E the same order. The two sentences are to be served concurrently. E
F F
D2
G G
85. For Charge 1, D2 shall go to prison for 22 months. For
H H
Charge 2, D2 shall go to prison for 24 months. I order that 8 months of the
I sentence on Charge 2 is to be served consecutively to the sentence on I
Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K D3 K
L L
86. For Charge 1, D3 shall go to prison for 22 months. For
M Charge 4, D3 shall pay a fine $1,000, to be paid within 7 days; and in M
default, D3 shall serve a term of 7 days’ imprisonment consecutive to his
N N
other sentence.
O O
D4
P P
Q 87. For Charge 2, D4 shall go to prison for 22 months. For Q
Charge 5, D4 shall go to prison for 3 months. I order that one month of the
R R
sentence on Charge 5 is to be served consecutively to the sentence on
S Charge 2, making an aggregate sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
D5
C C
88. For Charge 1, D5 shall go to prison for 22 months.
D D
E E
F F
G G
( Isaac Tam )
H District Judge H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 491 & 972/2020
(Consolidated)
C C
[2021] HKDC 575
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
F CRIMINAL CASE NOS 491 AND 972 OF 2020 F
G G
----------------------------
H HKSAR H
v
I I
WONG NOK YIN (D1)
J CHUNG CHIN MING (D2) J
SING MING FUNG (D3)
K K
CHAN KA YEE (D4)
L KO SHING YUEN (D5) L
----------------------------
M M
N N
Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court
O
Date: 11 May 2021 O
Present: Mr Newman Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
P P
Mr Frederick Fong, instructed by Littlewoods, assigned by the
Q Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant Q
Miss Mandy Wong Lok Man, instructed by Raymond Lam &
R R
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd
S defendant S
Mr Yeung Yeuk Chuen, instructed by KCL, assigned by the
T T
Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd defendant
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Mr Chong Tin Chun, instructed by A Lee & Partners, assigned
C by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 4th defendant C
Mr Paul Leung Po Sang, instructed by Collin Ng & Co,
D D
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 5th defendant
E Offence(s): [1]-[2] Burglary (入屋犯法罪) E
[4] Failure to produce proof of identity on demand (未能在規
F F
定下出示身分證明文件)
G G
[5] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause
H (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押) H
I I
---------------------------------------
J REASONS FOR SENTENCE J
---------------------------------------
K K
L 1. The five defendants (D1-D5) pleaded guilty before me to L
various charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.
M M
N 2. D1, D2, D3 and D5 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 of Burglary; N
and D1, D2 and D4 pleaded guilty to Charge 2 of Burglary. Both charges
O O
were preferred under section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap
P 210. P
Q Q
3. Particulars of Charge 1 are that D1, D2, D3 and D5, on
R 30 November 2019, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, R
having entered as trespassers part of a building known as Room 1601,
S S
th
CELLTRONIK HOTEL, Flat A4, 16 Floor, Block A, Mirador Mansion,
T T
Nos 54-64B Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, stole therein one
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
MacBook Pro, one computer carrying case, one backpack, cash of ¥700
C Renminbi, one United States passport, one power bank, one smartphone C
and one portable speaker.
D D
E 4. Particulars of Charge 2 are that D1, D2 and D4, on E
18 December 2019, in Hong Kong, having entered as trespassers part of a
F F
building known as Room 801, PARIS HOTEL, No 129 Temple Street, Yau
G Ma Tei, Kowloon, stole therein one television, one antenna, one cable, one G
television wall mount, one remote, 4 screws, one hairdryer, one plastic box
H H
and one towel.
I I
5. In addition, D3 pleaded guilty to Charge 4 of Failure to
J J
produce proof of identity on demand, contrary to section 17C(3) of the
K Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. Particulars are that he, on 20 January K
2020, outside Ground Floor, No 21A Lock Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon,
L L
in Hong Kong, being a person who is required to have with him proof of
M identity, failed to produce on demand proof of his identity for inspection M
by a police officer, namely, Police Constable 26454.
N N
O 6. Lastly, D4 also pleaded guilty to Charge 5 of Failing to O
surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1)
P P
and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. Particulars are that
Q she, on 9 September 2020, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted to bail, Q
without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as had been
R R
appointed by a court.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. Prosecution asked that Charge 3 of Theft against D1 be left
C on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the C
Court of Appel. I so ordered.
D D
E Facts admitted by all defendants E
F F
Charge 1 – Burglary against D1, D2, D3 and D5
G G
8. PW1 visited Hong Kong on 29 November 2019 and checked
H H
into Room 1601 of Celltronik Hotel (“the guesthouse”) on 16/F of Mirador
I Mansion for two nights. Room 1601 adjoined the common corridor of 16/F I
with a ventilation window in between. At about 8 pm on 30 November
J J
2019, he left the guesthouse after locking his door. When he returned at
K about 7 am the next day, he discovered that his property listed in the charge K
to the total value of $11,929 was missing.
L L
M 9. What happened was, on 30 November 2019, at 11:34 pm, after M
knocking on the main door of the guesthouse with no response, D3 climbed
N N
through the ventilation window of one of the rooms therein namely
O Room 1601 with help from D5 who lifted him up. This ventilation window O
is located between the room and the public corridor of 16/F. Shortly
P P
afterwards, the door of the guesthouse was opened from the inside and D1,
Q D2 and D5 and a male WP entered through the door. Within a minute, they Q
all left, with D3 holding a small black bag and PW1’s black backpack, and
R R
with D5 holding PW1’s blue computer carrying case. D5 passed the blue
S case to WP. D3 went his separate way. The others went down to Nathan S
Road at the location where D2’s car was parked. Several minutes later, D3
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
joined them for a brief chat. D1 and D2 then left by car while the rest
C walked off. C
D D
Charge 2 – Burglary against D1, D2 and D4
E E
10. Paris Hotel was located in Temple Street. Ms Tsoi had
F F
booked Room 801 for one night on 16 December 2019 but later told the
G hotel staff that someone else would pay to extend the stay. At 12:55 am G
on 18 December 2019, PW3 a staff member received a call at the front desk
H H
from Room 801 saying there was someone shouting for help [from the
I 10/F1]. Staff went [to Room 8012] at once but no one answered the door. I
Staff then entered the room with a keycard and found the items belonging
J J
to the room and listed in the charge to the total value of $4,000 missing.
K K
11. What happened was D1, D2 and D4 who had no right to be
L L
there had entered Room 801 using a keycard and carried out of the room
M all the above-mentioned items and took the stairs to 6/F. They then took M
the lift to G/F and left via the front door.
N N
O 12. At 11:10 am on the same day, D2 and an unknown male O
approached the hotel with all the missing property and claimed to be
P P
returning the same on behalf of their friend who had taken it for repair.
Q They offered to help mount the TV back on the wall but were told a police Q
report had already been made.
R R
S S
T T
1
This is an addendum.
2
This is a corrigendum from the word “there”.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. In the afternoon of the same day, D1 and D2 were intercepted
C separately in the vicinity and were arrested for Charges 1 and 2. Under C
caution, D1 stated that he had gone to the guesthouse at Mirador Mansion
D D
to look for a friend and he had stolen the TV from Paris Hotel to prank
E someone. Under caution, D2 stated that he had gone to the guesthouse at E
Mirador Mansion with 4 friends to chat with someone named “Ah Moon”;
F F
and he and D1 had taken the TV from Paris Hotel to prank Ms Tsoi because
G the latter had owed him $2,000. G
H H
Charge 4 – Failure to produce proof of ID against D3
I I
14. At 5:30 am on 20 January 2020, D3 was stopped on exit from
J J
a building in Lock Road, TST. D3 failed to produce his HKID card on
K demand and claimed to have lost his wallet several days ago and claimed K
that he had reported it missing at Kwai Chung Police Station. However,
L L
no such loss had been reported. D3 was arrested.
M M
Arrest of D4
N N
O 15. D4 was arrested on 27 December 2019 and stated under O
caution for Charge 2 that she and her friends had taken away the TV to
P P
prank someone named “Ah Gai” and her friends had already returned the
Q TV to the hotel. Q
R R
Arrest of D5
S S
16. D5 was arrested on 13 August 2020 and stated under caution
T T
for Charge 1 that D2 had asked him to go there to collect a debt that day.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C Cautioned interviews C
D D
D1
E E
17. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D1 stated
F F
that D2 had asked him to go to the guesthouse together to help collect a
G $10,000 debt from a Pakistani male “Ah Moon”; that D1, D2, D3 and D5 G
and another male went to the guesthouse together; they could not reach
H H
Ah Moon; D3 climbed into the guesthouse via the window and opened the
I door from the inside; D3 and D5 rummaged through the tenant’s I
belongings inside Room 1601; D3 took someone’s backpack which
J J
contained a laptop; D1 later left on D2’s car while D3, D5 and the male left
K by taxi. K
L L
18. Regarding Charge 2, D1 under caution stated that his friend
M Tsoi and her boyfriend D3 had rented Room 801 but D3 had not paid to M
extend the stay beyond 12 noon of 17 December 2010 for use by D1; but
N N
D1 somehow obtained the keycard from D3; he was not happy with D3
O who was supposed to extend the stay; he therefore asked D2 to help prank O
D3 by taking away the TV because it was booked under Tsoi’s name; they
P P
together with D4 entered Room 801 using the keycard, dismantled the TV
Q and took it away with other items from the room. Q
R R
D2
S S
19. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D2 stated
T T
that Ah Moon owed him money so he decided to go to find him at the
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
guesthouse with D1, D3, D5 and another male; no one answered the door
C so D3 climbed through the window, entered the room and opened the door C
for the rest of them to enter the guesthouse.
D D
E 20. Regarding Charge 2, D2 under caution stated that since Tsoi E
owed him $2,000, he suggested that D1 and D4 should prank Tsoi by taking
F F
away the items from the hotel room; it was D1 and him who dismantled
G the TV using a screwdriver and they stole the other items; D4 then called G
the front desk saying that someone at 10/F was shouting for help in order
H H
to distract the staff while they made good the escape; later D2 and a friend
I returned the items to the hotel. I
J J
D3
K K
21. During cautioned interviews, regarding Charge 1, D3 stated
L L
that he received a call from D2 asking him to find Ah Moon with D1, D5
M and another male; they then met at Mirador Mansion; no one answered the M
door so D2 asked him to climb into the guesthouse through the ventilation
N N
window; he did so with help of D5 and opened the door from the inside;
O then D1, D2, D5 and another male entered the guesthouse and searched for O
items there; he took a backpack containing a laptop and D5 took away a
P P
bag; he left alone by taxi but later met the others outside Mirador Mansion;
Q D5 sold the laptop for $1,500 and gave the money to D2 who gave him Q
$500.
R R
S 22. Regarding Charge 4, D3 stated under caution he had lost his S
HKID card in mid-December 2019; that he had made an appointment to
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
apply for a replacement at the Immigration Department in January 2020
C but he did not attend the appointment in the end. C
D D
D4
E E
23. During a cautioned interview, regarding Charge 2, D4 stated
F F
that in the afternoon of 17 December 2019, D3 gave the room keycard to
G D1 who passed it to her; she together with D1 and D2 then went to G
Room 801 and took away the TV to prank D3 and Tsoi as they had owed
H H
D2 money; D1 and D2 dismantled the TV using a screwdriver after which
I she called the front desk saying that someone on 10/F had shouted for help I
so as to distract the staff while they made good their escape; she discovered
J J
in the afternoon of 18 December 2019 that D2 had returned the TV to the
K hotel. K
L L
D5
M M
24. During a cautioned interview, regarding Charge 1, D5 stated
N N
that he received a call from D2 asking him to meet at Mirador Mansion to
O collect a debt; he went and met up with D1 and D2; the trio went up to 16/F O
but failed to enter the guesthouse; D3 and another maile arrived; D3 opened
P P
the ventilation window; he lifted D3 up; D3 climbed through the window
Q and opened the guesthouse door from the inside; he entered Room 1601 Q
and took a look; D3 and another male took two bags away from the room;
R R
the male had passed him the bag that the male had earlier taken; he opened
S the bag and saw a passport and a laptop; he and D3 later put the two bags S
into D2’s car.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 5 – Failure to surrender to custody against D4
C C
25. A day namely 9 September 2020 had been appointed for D4
D D
to appear at the District Court for mention for this case. She failed to
E appear and so a warrant of arrest was issued against her. On 27 September E
2020, she was arrested inside a flat in Cheung Sha Wan for an unrelated
F F
case. She was therefore re-arrested for the present case.
G G
26. Under caution, D4 admitted that she had simply forgotten to
H H
attend court on 9 September and that she had not surrendered herself to the
I District Court to explain her absence. I
J J
Criminal records
K K
27. D1 has 4 criminal convictions but none similar. He has not
L L
been imprisoned before.
M M
28. D2 has 12 criminal convictions 4 of which are Theft
N N
Ordinance offences though not burglary the last of which was in 2015.
O O
29. D3 has 9 previous convictions 2 of which were for thefts (both
P P
in 2013).
Q Q
30. D4 has 2 previous convictions none similar. She has been
R R
imprisoned before.
S S
31. D5 has 2 previous convictions none similar.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
32. D1 is aged 20 (18 at the time of the offences), educated to F3,
D D
was a transportation worker earning a $20,000 salary. He is the only child
E and lived with his relatives in public housing. E
F F
33. D2 is aged 39 (38 at the time of the offences), educated to A-
G level in UK, was a casual transportation worker earning a $10,000 to G
$15,000 salary. He is married with three children and before being
H H
remanded lived with family in Tai Kok Tsui.
I I
34. D3 is aged 24 (23 at the time of the offences), educated to P6
J J
and completed vocational training, was a casual transportation worker with
K daily salary of $700 and earning about $13,000 per month. He resided with K
his mother and maternal uncle in public housing in Shek Lei Pui.
L L
M 35. D4 is aged 20 (19 at the time of the offences), educated to F4, M
was a salesperson. She resided with her mother, stepfather and two
N N
younger sisters in public housing in Shek Kip Mei.
O O
36. D5 is aged 25 (23 at the time of the offence), educated to high
P P
school level in the Mainland, was a cook earning $20,000 a month. His
Q parents are divorced and he was living alone in a guesthouse in TST. Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
Mitigation
C C
D1
D D
E 37. Mr Frederick Fong of counsel assigned by the Director of E
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1. The following is a summary of the
F F
mitigation submissions.
G G
38. D1 is single. His previous convictions were non-similar ones
H H
and were in 2015 when he was aged 14, and thus should be disregarded.
I I
39. Charge 2 involved items of little resale value which were
J J
offered to be returned on the same day.
K K
40. D1 is remorseful as evidenced by his frank admissions.
L L
M 41. Both premises involved were domestic premises. The starting M
point for burglary of this type is one of 3 years’ imprisonment. D1 pleads
N N
guilty in time and is entitled to 1/3 discount. D1 seeks a lenient sentence
O and asks the court to take into account the totality principle. O
P P
42. Upon seeing the DC/TC suitability report, D1 agrees to the
Q report and accepts the recommendation therein. Mr Fong added that D1 Q
has been detained for 16-17 months already.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
D2
C C
43. Ms Mandy Wong of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
D D
Aid mitigated on behalf of D2. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
44. D2’s two daughters (both 12) are F1 students while his
G youngest son (5) is studying in K3. In 2015, D2 and his wife separated. G
The wife left the family and became uncontactable. All the children then
H H
came under the care of D2 with assistance provided by D2’s mother (50).
I D2 was the sole breadwinner. I
J J
45. The greatest mitigation is D2’s pleas. No heavy
K housebreaking implements were used. No property damage was made K
during the offences. D2 was not disguising himself which shows the
L L
burglaries were not well-planned or premeditated. D2 accepts that PW1’s
M loss of personal belongings caused great inconvenience and financial loss M
to him.
N N
O 46. Charge 2 is a prank. D2 took the initiative to return the stolen O
property within 12 hours thus mitigating his misdeeds and causing no loss
P P
to the hotel.
Q Q
47. D2 has no previous for burglary and the last dishonesty-
R R
related conviction was in 2015. D2 asks that he be not treated as a
S persistent offender. He promises to turn over a new leaf on release. S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
48. It is accepted that according to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003]
C 2 HKLRD 338, a burglary of a hotel room should attract at least the same C
sentence as that of domestic premises, and the sentence of 3 years is
D D
appropriate.
E E
49. D2 asks for a lenient sentence and asks the court to consider
F F
the totality principle.
G G
50. For Charge 1, there is nothing to suggest D2 was the leader of
H H
the burglary.
I I
51. For Charge 2, it is acknowledged that under caution, D2 said
J J
it was him who suggested that D1 and D4 to prank Tsoi by taking away the
K items from the hotel room booked by her. K
L L
D3
M M
52. Mr YC Yeung of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
N N
Aid mitigated on behalf of D3. The following is a summary of the
O mitigation submissions. O
P P
53. D3 pleaded guilty to Charges 1 & 4. Mr Yeung also referred
Q to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing, supra. However, D3 asks the court to adopt a Q
lower starting point than 3 years on the grounds that he did not have prior
R R
knowledge that the place was a hotel room; that there was no premeditation
S to burgle; and no tools, mask or gloves were used. D3 asks that despite it S
was a multi-party burglary, a starting point of not more than 3 years would
T T
be sufficient because there was no prior agreement to burgle. After
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
referring to HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259, Mr Yeung
C asks the court to consider that D3 was an opportunistic burglar on the basis C
that D3 only re-entered Room 1601 to steal after first exit when he had
D D
seen others had taken something from Room 1601.
E E
54. For Charge 4, D3 asks for a fine not more than in the
F F
thousands (which can be paid within 7 days), or alternatively, a short
G concurrent or substantially concurrent prison term. G
H H
55. D3 asks for leniency.
I I
D4
J J
K 56. Mr Chong Tin Chun of counsel assigned by the Director of K
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D4. The following is a summary of the
L L
mitigation submissions.
M M
57. D4 pleaded guilty to Charges 2 and 5. D4 has a son (8 months)
N N
and has been taken care of by social worker since birth. D4 was addicted
O to ICE since 2018 and did not have a good relationship with her family. It O
is submitted that D4 now has no drug addiction.
P P
Q 58. D4 did not have any personal gain in Charge 2. In relation to Q
Charge 5, D4 simply forgot to attend court.
R R
S 59. D4 wants to have a career in taking care of toddlers and has S
completed half of an elementary toddler course. D4 wants to get back her
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
son after discharge and takes care of him herself. Her parents are willing
C to help in that regard. C
D D
60. Mr Chong also referred to HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing, supra.
E Mr Chong referred to HKSAR v Lam Chi Kwan, CACC 105/2018, and E
submits that for a case of failing to surrender to custody lasting 10 years,
F F
the starting point was 6 months’ imprisonment.
G G
61. D4 is now a mother and wants to start a new leaf. She has re-
H H
established relationship with her family. Mr Chong asks the court to adopt
I a lower starting point than 3 years for Charge 2 on the basis that there was I
no invasion of a hotel tenant’s room, nor are there any particular
J J
aggravating factors. D4 was not the mastermind. All the stolen property
K have been returned and there was no loss to the hotel. K
L L
62. On Charge 5, Mr Chong asks the court for a starting point of
M lower than 6 months on the basis that D4 did not willfully disobey a court M
order and the time was only 18 days.
N N
O 63. Mr Chong asks for concurrent or partially concurrent O
sentences after taking into account the totality principle.
P P
Q 64. D4 submits a mitigation letter written by herself. The contents Q
generally are that the love and care extended by her mother caused her to
R R
realize the damage she has done to her mother and herself; that she asks for
S a lenient sentence so as to facilitate rehabilitation. S
T T
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
65. Upon seeing the TC suitability report, except for one sentence,
C D4 agrees to the report. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Chong submitted C
that D4 did not know she was about 2 months into her pregnancy at the
D D
time of the burglary offence.
E E
D5
F F
G 66. Mr Paul PS Leung of counsel assigned by the Director of G
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D5. The following is a summary of the
H H
mitigation submissions.
I I
67. D5 pleaded guilty to Charge 1, the only charge he faces. D5
J J
has no similar records.
K K
68. D5 initially intended to help a friend D2 to collect a debt at
L L
the premises out of friendship. Nonetheless, on arrival, D5 learnt it was
M not the case and he went ahead and followed the instructions of D2 without M
any reward or promise of reward. D5 simply assisted D3 to climb into the
N N
hotel room. D5 did not use any tools. D5 did not keep any valuable stolen
O property. D5 did not conceal his identity hence it could be said that it was O
an opportunistic offence without sophistication or premeditation. D5 is
P P
fully remorseful which can be reflected by his full confession on arrest. D5
Q will not reoffend. Q
R R
69. D5 knows that the starting point for a hotel room burglary was
S 3 years’ imprisonment. D5 asks for a lenient sentence. S
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
70. D5 submits a mitigation letter written by his mother. The
C contents generally are that a lenient sentence is asked for so that D5 could C
start afresh.
D D
E Detention and Training Centres Suitability Report on D1 E
F F
71. The conclusion on D1 is that he is mentally and physically fit
G for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre; that he is G
considered more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre where he
H H
could undergo a period of strict disciplinary training followed by statutory
I supervision. I
J J
Training Centre Suitability Report on D4
K K
72. The conclusion on D4 is that since it is the Medical Officer’s
L L
opinion that D4 is a drug dependent and medically unfit to fully participate
M in the Training Centre programme, she is not considered suitable for M
detention in a Training Centre.
N N
O Sentence O
P P
73. I have considered all the mitigation submissions. I will not
Q treat D2 as a persistent offender. As regards D4, I do not accept the Q
submission that she did not know she was pregnant at the time of the
R R
commission of the Charge 2 offence.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
74. The normal starting point for a hotel room burglary is 3 years’
C imprisonment. In this case, I cannot ignore the aggravating factor of more C
than one person acting in concert under both Charges 1 and 2.
D D
E 75. I have regard to the facts of the case including what were said E
by the defendants under caution.
F F
G 76. In respect of Charge 1, it does appear that the burglary was G
not pre-planned but on the other hand it was not opportunistic either. In
H H
fact, particular effort had to be exerted in order to gain entry by climbing
I in through a window with the help of another person. Fortunately, there I
was no damage to the window or lock of the premises. I will adopt a lower
J J
basic starting point of 2 ½ years for this burglary charge. For the
K aggravating factor of acting in concert, I will add 3 months. Although D2 K
appeared to be the convenor of the group for the purpose of collecting a
L L
debt, it is unclear from the objective facts who was the ringleader of the
M burglary. So I will treat everyone as equal members of the joint enterprise. M
N N
77. In respect of Charge 2, the fact that the relevant defendants
O pleaded guilty to the charge suggests that they admitted to having an O
intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property involved. The
P P
motive appears to be, as least as far as D2 (who admitted under caution to
Q be the instigator) was concerned, to get Tsoi into trouble. The decision to Q
return the stolen property only came at a later stage. I am satisfied that the
R R
mastermind of this burglary was D2. I take into account the fact that there
S was no damage to the hotel room and there was in the end no loss of S
property. I will again take 2 ½ years as the basic starting point. For the
T T
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
aggravating factor of acting in concert, I will add 3 months. As against D2
C for his singular role, I will add a further 3 months. C
D D
78. In respect of Charge 4 against D3 only, the offence does not
E carry an imprisonment penalty. I will impose a fine of $1,000 after plea. E
F F
79. In respect of Charge 5 against D4 only, I will adopt a low
G starting point of 4 ½ months. G
H H
80. As against D1, because of his youth and because of a
I favourable Detention Centre Report, I am minded to order that he be I
detained in a Detention Centre. I can see no mitigating factors which could
J J
persuade me to impose an even lighter sentence on him.
K K
81. All the other defendants will be entitled to a 1/3 discount on
L L
prison terms as a result of their timely pleas. There are no other mitigating
M factors of sufficient weight to warrant a further reduction. M
N N
82. D1, D2, D4 face more than one imprisonment term. I will
O consider the principle of totality in their cases. The offences are completely O
separate in their respective cases and hence the resulting sentences ought,
P P
subject to totality, to be served consecutively.
Q Q
83. I will impose the following individual sentences.
R R
S (All defendants, please stand) S
T T
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
D1
C C
84. For Charge 1, I order that D1, being a person apparently under
D D
21 years of age, be detained in a Detention Centre. For Charge 2, I make
E the same order. The two sentences are to be served concurrently. E
F F
D2
G G
85. For Charge 1, D2 shall go to prison for 22 months. For
H H
Charge 2, D2 shall go to prison for 24 months. I order that 8 months of the
I sentence on Charge 2 is to be served consecutively to the sentence on I
Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K D3 K
L L
86. For Charge 1, D3 shall go to prison for 22 months. For
M Charge 4, D3 shall pay a fine $1,000, to be paid within 7 days; and in M
default, D3 shall serve a term of 7 days’ imprisonment consecutive to his
N N
other sentence.
O O
D4
P P
Q 87. For Charge 2, D4 shall go to prison for 22 months. For Q
Charge 5, D4 shall go to prison for 3 months. I order that one month of the
R R
sentence on Charge 5 is to be served consecutively to the sentence on
S Charge 2, making an aggregate sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
D5
C C
88. For Charge 1, D5 shall go to prison for 22 months.
D D
E E
F F
G G
( Isaac Tam )
H District Judge H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V