A A
B B
DCCC 163/2018
C [2018] HKDC 868 C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 163 OF 2018 E
F F
----------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
CHEUNG CHEUK HIN (D1)
I CHAN KWAN HO (D2) I
----------------
J J
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Kathie Cheung
L L
Date: 19 July 2018
M Present: Miss. Stella Lo, Public Prosecutor of M
Department of Justice, for HKSAR
N N
Mr. Solomon Chong, of M/s Solomon C. Chong & Co,
O assigned by DLA, for D1 O
Mr. Norman Lee, of M/s Peter K.H. Wong & Co,
P P
assigned by DLA, for D2
Q Offence: Burglary（入屋犯法罪） Q
R R
--------------------------------------
S S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T -------------------------------------- T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
B 1. The two defendants pleaded guilty to one count of “burglary”, B
contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.
C C
210.
D D
Facts
E E
F 2. Metroplaza is a shopping mall with main entrance secured by glass F
doors without roller gate. At midnight every day, security guards
G G
would set up metal fencing inside the glass doors to stop
H unauthorized entry. H
I I
3. At the material times, Simplylife Bakery Café was a restaurant
J situated at 5th Floor of Metroplaza. The Café was enclosed on 3 J
sides with no door at its entrance. A “closed” sign would be put
K K
outside the entrance of the Café after it was closed for business.
L L
M
4. On 2 September 2017 at 11:30 pm, Mr Ho, manager of the Café, M
closed the shop for business. Before leaving, he checked everything
N N
was in order.
O O
5. At 12:50 am on 3 September 2017, Mr Chong, while he was on duty
P P
monitoring the security of Metroplaza through watching CCTV
Q installed in Metroplaza, noticed the two defendants enter Q
Metroplaza through the glass doors of the main entrance. Mr Chong
R R
found it strange and reported to the police.
S S
6. Mr Chong kept observing the two defendants via CCTV. He saw
T T
them walk up to the 5th Floor. Then, the first defendant entered the
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
B Café while the second defendant acted as a lookout. The first B
defendant stayed in the Café for about 1 minute and left with a can of
C C
soft drink in his hand. While the two defendants were on the way
D leaving Metroplaza, police arrived and intercepted them. D
E E
7. Under caution, the first defendant admitted entering the Café
F intending to steal while the second defendant acted as a lookout. He F
found nothing of value and thus he stole a can of soft drink.
G G
H 8. Under caution, the second defendant admitted acting as a lookout H
while the first defendant entered the Café. He saw the first defendant
I I
steal a can of soft drink.
J J
9. Mr Ho of the Café confirmed that the soft drink was stolen from the
K K
Café.
L L
M
Mitigation M
N N
10. The first defendant is aged 17. He was educated up to F4 and then
O started to work as a bartender. He is single and previously lived with O
his parents. He has one conviction for attempt robbery in March
P P
2018 and is currently serving the sentence in the Detention Centre.
Q It was submitted that the first defendant came from a stable family Q
with both parents working. The first defendant undertook to reform
R R
himself. The court was urged to sentence the first defendant to the
S Detention Centre. S
T T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
B 11. The second defendant is aged 16. He is single and lives with his B
parents. The second defendant has a clear record.
C C
D 12. It was submitted that the second defendant did not play an active D
role in the offence. No weapon nor tool was involved. No injury
E E
was caused. None of the defendants put on sun glasses, mask or hat
F to conceal their identity. The value of stolen property was low. The F
offence did not involve detailed planning. It was further submitted
G G
that given the second defendant’s youth and clear record,
H imprisonment was not the only option. The court was urged to call H
for reports before sentencing. Mitigating letters were submitted
I I
which show the second defendant was previously a rule-abiding and
J helpful student but he was easily influenced by others. The defence J
also relied on the reason for sentence in a similar case in DCCC
K K
115/2010 and urged the court to consider imposing a probation
L L
order.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 13. There is a well settled sentencing guideline for burglary of O
non-domestic premises. According to the guideline, the starting
P P
point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a
Q first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or Q
mitigating features is 2.5 years’ imprisonment.
R R
S 14. However, in the light of the fact that both defendants are under 21 S
years old and by virtue of section 109A(1) of the Criminal Procedure
T T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
B Ordinance, Cap. 221, I adjourned the case so that pre-sentencing B
reports could be called for. These reports are now available.
C C
D 15. As far as the first defendant is concerned, he is currently serving his D
sentence in Detention Centre for the case of DCCC 945/2017. In the
E E
Detention Centre Suitability Report, it was stated that “the
F defendant was able to tune in the disciplinary training and to make F
steady progress. He was able to follow the rules and regulations in
G G
the Detention Centre. He showed sense of remorse for his misdeeds
H and determination to turn a new leaf.” After assessment of his H
behavior and attitude whilst undergoing training in Detention Centre,
I I
the first defendant was considered suitable for detention in
J Detention Centre. In the circumstances, I am prepared to give the J
first defendant another chance by sentencing him to Detention
K K
Centre for the present offence. I hope he will keep his promise and
L L
turn over a new leaf. By virtue of section 7(1)(aa) of the Detention
M
Centres Ordinance, Cap. 239, given the first defendant is sentenced M
to Detention Centre for the present offence, the detention order in
N N
respect of DCCC 945/2017 shall lapse.
O O
16. Regarding the second defendant, the Report on Suitability for
P P
Detention Centre / Rehabilitation Centre / Training Centre stated the
Q second defendant “showed some sense of remorse and was observed Q
to have reflection into his wrongdoings. … In order to strengthen
R R
defendant’s law-abiding concept, a period of disciplinary training
S coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to his S
rehabilitation.” He was assessed to be more suitable for detention in
T T
a Detention Centre.
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
B 17. Probation Officer’s report on the second defendant showed that the B
second defendant seemed to have gained some insight into his
C C
problem and expressed his readiness for admission into a boarding
D school in order to cut off his dubious linkages and concentrate on his D
studies without further disturbances. The probation officer was of
E E
the view that a period of residential training at a boarding school
F would be beneficial to the second defendant and the second F
defendant deserved a chance for social rehabilitation in the open
G G
setting given his remorse and clear record.
H H
18. The Young Offender Assessment Panel considered the second
I I
defendant’s case and recommended placing him on probation
J supervision for 24 months. J
K K
19. In view of the second defendant’s young age, clear record and his
L L
plea of guilty to the charge and the Young Offender Assessment
M
Panel’s recommendation, I am prepared to follow the M
recommendation of the Panel and impose a 24-month probation
N N
order on the second defendant with all the special conditions as
O specified in the report. I hope the second defendant will treasure this O
opportunity to reform himself and become a useful member of the
P P
community. The second defendant has to attend court again on 19
Q July 2019 at 10 am, court 21, for progress report. Q
R R
S S
(Kathie Cheung)
T Deputy District Judge T
U U
V V