HKSAR v. NG KAI NAM

DCCC1419/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1419 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The first defendant was charged for four counts of burglary, contrary to section 11(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance (Charge 1, 3, 4, 5). And jointly charged with others for one count of attempted burglary, contrary to section 11(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance (Charge 6).

The first defendant pleaded guilty to charge 3, 4, 5, and 6 and admitted the facts, he was convicted accordingly. Upon the prosecution application charge 1 was put on court file not to proceed without leave.

Facts

Between 11:00pm on 28 September 2009 and 11:00am on 29 September 2009, Chi Ba Sushi (Shop 2) was burgled and $9,000 was found missing. (Charge 3)

Around 12:30am to 5:25am on 29 September 2009, Thai Restaurant (Shop 3) was burgled and $3,000 was found missing. (Charge 4)

Under caution the first defendant admitted that at midnight on 29 September 2009, he together with D2 and D3 went to Chi Lok Garden carpark in Tuen Mum and burgled Shop 2 and 3.

Around 12:05am to 5:50am on 18 October 2009, Sun Chiu Kee Restaurant (Shop 4) was burgled and a safe with cash $7,601 was found missing. (Charge 5)

Under caution the first defendant admitted that on 18 October 2009 he together with D2, D3 and Sze Fu burgled Shop 4.

At about 2:00am on 22 October 2009, D1 to D4 together with an unknown male arrived in the vicinity of Kam Chun Dumplings Restaurant (Shop 5). D1 and D2 went up to the rear door of Shop 5, D1 attempted to prize open the rear door with a crowbar. D3 and D4 acted as a lookout. D1 and D3 were arrested by police officers who were carrying out anti-burglary operation nearby. D4 was arrested at a later stage. (Charge 6)

All the charges concern non-domestic burglary, I consider the appropriate starting point to be 30 months imprisonment for each charge. I noted however, the first defendant aged 19 with clear record and has been remanded since his arrest. In view of his age, his background and the circumstances of the case, a Detention Centre report and a Training Centre report were called for.

It revealed in the joint report that the defendant came from a working-class family being the elder of two siblings. The defendant had received ample care and attention from his parents in his early years, the child discipline became loose after the mother began working to make both ends meet. Defendant was then mainly looked after by his paternal grandmother yet he managed to maintain a fair relationship with his family members but he seldom disclosed his social life and feeling to his parents. This probably explained why the mother was shocked upon learning about the defendant’s delinquent behaviour.

The defendant was weak in his studies since his primary years. Having indentified with some dubious peers, he even developed thievish behaviour at home. He left school without completing Form Three, and enrolled in a vocational training course at VTC in 2005, however he was not concentrate in his studies, although he kept attending the course until July 2006, he failed to obtain the certificate of completion. Having stayed idle for months, he took up casual works at different restaurants and then resumed his vocational studies in September 2008, at the same time he kept working at KFC and from August 2009 he started his apprenticeship with his last employer. Since 2002, the defendant befriended with triad peers, and eventually involved in gambling and drugs, he owed a debt of $40,000 and driven by his greed, he committed the current offences.

The defendant appeared to be polite and cooperative during the interview. However, without courage to bear the legal consequence or inclination to receive reformation training, he bargained with the assessment officer for a term of imprisonment which he thought might be shortened after discounting his remand period. The defendant displayed a strong attachment to his dubious peers. Although he expected to continue his work as an apprentice technician after his release, he displayed little determination to evaluate his social life and career path. It appears that the defendant failed to have any insight into his behavious. The parents showed great concern and worry towards the defendant during the interview for social enquiry; and addressed their full support for defendant’s reformation in unison.

The assessment officer recommended that in order to help the defendant to develop insight into his behaviour, a term of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to him. The defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre and the officer considered him more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre.

Taking into account of the background and the character of the defendant, and the recommendation of the report, I consider that a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision is beneficial to him.

I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having regard to the defendant character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of the offences, it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a period of training in a Detention Centre.

Order

For Charge 3 – 6, each charge the first defendant is sentenced to serve a Detention Centre order, all to run concurrently.