|
DCCC 100/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 100 OF 2013
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Ramos Jr Fredjewell A. |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge Tallentire |
| Date: |
5 March 2013 at 11.48 am |
| Present: |
Ms Irene Poon, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Lam San-yin, of Lam & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.
2. What happened is this. The offence occurred in Room 1201 on the 12th Floor, Block M, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, which is the office of the Administration Section. The staff would place their personal belongings there and the door would be locked when the staff were off duty.
3. At approximately 2230 hours on 11 November last, PC58490, who was PW1, and other officers spotted you walking in a suspicious manner holding a number of bags. They stopped you on Science Museum Road for inquiries.
4. They seized the exhibits named in the charge, valued at about $30,000.
5. Under caution you admitted stealing the property. You said the reason was you had no money. You asked for a chance.
6. Further inquiries showed that the seized exhibits belonged to PWs 2 to 6 inclusive.
7. Prise marks were found on the door and on the handle your fingerprints. Inside the room a pair of pliers was found.
8. CCTV footage showed you entering the room at 2115 hours and leaving with a big rucksack at 2223 hours on 11 November last year.
9. In a subsequent video recorded interview under caution you admitted the offence and claimed the door had been unlocked.
10. You admitted to 12 previous convictions, 10 of which involved dishonesty but none involved burglary.
11. On your behalf Mr Lam entered mitigation. He told me that you are 34 years of age, divorced, with a daughter to care for. Your mother I understand is in the USA. Your daughter is now cared for by your sister. You were educated to Form 5 in Hong Kong and thereafter to university level in the Philippines. Up to 2010, when the company closed, you had worked as a yoga tutor earning some $20,000 to $30,000 per month. Since then you have only found part-time work in a similar job.
12. Mr Lam emphasised that this was an unsophisticated burglary, that you had carried no breaking tools and that you had been fully co-operative with the police upon arrest. You had committed this offence because you were short of money to care for your daughter.
13. Perhaps a prime point of mitigation is the fact that all goods were recovered.
14. Mr Lam also made the point that this is commercial premises.
15. I turn now to the sentence.
16. There were no special features to this case. I do accept that it was an unsophisticated burglary and all goods were recovered. I accept also that you were fully co-operative with the police upon arrest. I note though that you have a very poor record.
17. It seems to me that this is a standard burglary of commercial premises which calls for a standard sentence.
18. Stand up, please. I take as a starting point in this case 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty.
19. You will go to prison for 20 months.
| |
Tallentire |
| |
District Judge |
|