|
DCCC396/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 396 OF 2012
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Tsoi Hung-bun |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge E. Lin |
| Date: |
13 June 2012 at 10.24 am |
| Present: |
Mr Alex Wong, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Lau Sai-man, Simon, of Tam & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. In these proceedings the defendant Tsoi Hung-bun, is charged with, pleaded guilty to and is convicted of one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.
2. The facts as read and admitted by him in open court revealed that some time at about 1 pm on 13 September 2005 the defendant entered in the office situated at Room 1610 Silvercord Tower 2, Canton Road, where he used to work by opening the electronic number lock. From inside he stole a cashbox containing approximately $500 cash and 3 digital cameras. When the staff of the company returned at about 2 pm, they found the items missing and reported the matter to the police.
3. The defendant’s actions were caught by CCTV installed in the premises. He was identified by the owner of the company. He was arrested on 13 October 2007 when he was trying to leave Hong Kong via the Lowu Border Crossing.
4. Under caution he admitted to have stolen the items in question and then he had sold the cameras for a total of $3,000.
5. This is a case involving burglary of a non-domestic premises, an offence for which there is a very clear sentencing guideline. The usual starting point is 2½ years’ imprisonment. See the case of Khan Asif [2010] 1 HKLRD 404.
6. In this case there an aggravating factor in that he had been a former employee of the company and had resigned in January of the same year. That explains why he managed to open the electronic number lock and gained access to the premises. On the other hand, the defendant offered to repay the damages suffered by the company. So I would say that these two factors cancel each other out. Therefore, I would adopt the usual starting point of 30 months as a starting point.
7. I turn to consider the mitigating factors put forward by the defence. The defendant was aged 32 at the time of the offence and in March of the same year he was convicted of one case of theft for which he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. Therefore by the time he committed the present offence he had just been released from prison.
8. This case had not been brought up until now because the defendant jumped bail and left Hong Kong to stay in the mainland. The defence counsel said that he came to Hong Kong to surrender himself. I do not see that could be a reason for exercising any additional leniency.
9. From the facts of the case and from the submission of his lawyer, I do not see any particular reason which might justify my departure from the sentencing guideline. I therefore adopt the starting point of 30 months and reduce the same to 20 to take into account of the guilty plea. In addition, the defendant should pay compensation in the sum of $18,500 by 2 pm today.
| |
E. Lin |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|