HKSAR v. THAPA LIL RAM

DCCC 372/2018

[2018] HKDC 1115

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 372 OF 2018

----------------

----------------

-------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-------------------------------------------

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “burglary”, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Facts

2.  Ms Wong is a staff of Leisure and Cultural Service Department and is deployed to Lei Cheng Uk Swimming Pool at Shek Kip Mei (“the Swimming Pool”). 

3.  At around 7:50 p.m. on 6 March 2018, Ms Wong, via CCTV camera, spotted a person entering the Swimming Pool when the Swimming Pool was closed.  She therefore reported the matter to the police.  At around 8:00 p.m. on the same day, the said person left the Swimming Pool.

4.  At around 8:02 p.m. on the same day, police officers arrived at the Swimming Pool.  They subsequently spotted the defendant lying inside a drainage near the slope beside the Swimming Pool.  The police officers then intercepted the defendant for enquiry.

5.  Upon enquiry and before the defendant was cautioned, the Defendant stated that he just left the Swimming Pool, and he went to a room therein for watching TV and finding some food to eat.  The defendant was then arrested.

6.  The defendant was brought back to the Swimming Pool and he confirmed he entered the staff room of the Swimming Pool.  Ms Wong confirmed nothing was missing or damaged in the said staff room.

7.  In subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he went to the Swimming Pool to find some food, that he entered the staff room by tampering the lock with a phone card, that he heated up water there but did not search for food as he had food in his bag and he left the staff room after 5 minutes.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant is aged 35 and was born in Hong Kong.  He is single and lives alone in Hong Kong.  He was educated up to Form 5.  He previously worked in construction sites for different companies. He had been unemployed for 3-4 years prior to the present case.  He has a clear record. 

Sentence

9.  There is a well settled sentencing guideline for burglary of non-domestic premises. According to the guideline, the starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there is no aggravating or mitigating feature is 2.5 years’ imprisonment.

10.  As there is no aggravating feature in the commission of the offence, the appropriate starting point is 2.5 years’ imprisonment.  Given the defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.  Apart from that, I do not see other mitigating factor justifying further reduction of sentence.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.