|
DCCC787/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 787 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Kan Tak-man |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
5 September 2011 at 11.39 am |
| Present: |
Ms Monica Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Wong Wai-man, of Yu & Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The offence was committed on 23 June 2010 at a garage premises at Tai Shoi Ha Road West in Yuen Long.
2. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that PW1 is the owner of the garage. The premises are 2,000 square feet, surrounded by a metal hoarding of 2 metres. There is one vehicular entrance secured by a metal hoarding gate. There is also an office which is constructed of two 40 foot containers inside the garage.
3. At 9.30 pm on 23 June, PW1 was cleaning the open area of the garage before leaving, when a male, who is believed to be the defendant, turned up at the garage. He approached the owner of the garage, claiming he would like to buy a set of rims with tyres. No agreement was reached.
4. A short time later the defendant returned to the garage, this time wearing a black waist bag, and he took out from the bag a radar detector and asked for it to be checked. After checking the detector was returned to the defendant who then left the garage. Later that night the owner secured the doors and windows of his office and the gate of the garage before going home.
5. The following morning PW1 returned and noticed that the opening of the metal hoarding gate, he noticed a piece of metal near the gate was loosened from inside. He noted that items had been moved inside the garage. He noticed also inside was a black waist bag, and inside he saw the radar detector which he had seen the previous evening. He found that the metal gate of the office was ajar and an amplifier was moved from the office to the entrance of the office. There were signs of ransacking and the air-conditioner had fallen on the floor, but nothing was found missing. The defendant’s fingerprints were found inside the office.
6. The defendant has an appalling record, 53 convictions, 21 court appearances, four for burglary, 19 for dishonesty. He is currently serving a term of 3½ years' imprisonment, from which he is due to be released in November of next year.
7. The defendant is aged 36. He was educated to Primary 6 level. All his family, apparently, are living in Canada. He has a son who also is living in Canada, who is looked after by his mother.
8. The only mitigation in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty and there was nothing missing from the garage.
9. The usual sentence for this offence is 30 months’ imprisonment, and the defendant is entitled to a reduction of one-third to reflect his guilty plea. So I reduce that sentence to one of 20 months’ imprisonment and order that 12 months of that sentence shall run consecutive to his existing sentence.
|