|
DCCC245/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 245 OF 2011
----------------------
----------------------
Before: |
Deputy District Judge J Lam |
Date: |
19 April 2011 at 10.14 am |
Present: |
Miss Monica Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Beukema John Paul, of Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
1. The defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary.
2. The place was a construction site.
3. In the small hours on 31 January 2011, the police ambushed near the construction site. They saw someone throwing bundles of copper wires from the first floor of Block 3 in that site. These bundles landed on the pavement outside the site. The defendant picked them up and put them on a trolley.
4. The police took action. The defendant attempted to flee but was unsuccessful. He was caught and the police found him wearing gloves in his left hand and he also had two cutters in his pocket.
5. Under caution, the defendant said he did that for money. Two other men, Ah Fai and Ah Chuen, asked him to participate in the theft. Those two went into the site and threw down the stolen properties for the defendant to pick them up outside the site. They promised to give the defendant $200 after the job.
6. The person in charge of the site confirmed that the five bundles of copper wire were stolen from the site, to be exact, from Block 3. The total value of the copper wires was estimated to be about HK$30,000.
7. The defendant is aged 68. He has 11 previous convictions, five of which are related to theft and one for going equipped for stealing.
8. In mitigation, counsel says the defendant has a wife and children. His wife is not good in health.
9. Counsel points out that the defendant was frank to the police, making full admissions. The defendant also gave brief descriptions of the other two accomplices to the police and indicated to the police that he would testify against those two if they were caught, but, as counsel admits, the assistance provided by the defendant to the police is not very helpful and it has led to no arrest of those two men.
10. Therefore, I cannot and would not take that into account for giving the defendant extra discount of sentence.
11. Counsel also points out that despite the fact that the defendant has a number of previous convictions, none of which is related to similar burglaries.
12. That is true, but the defendant is not a man of good character either. His many convictions consist of a number of theft records and also one for going equipped for stealing, and these dishonest records were over a number of years from 2003 to 2010. Apparently, the defendant has not reformed himself.
13. Counsel says the defendant only played a minor role in this incident. He was instigated by the other two men and was only promised a humble reward of $200.
14. Of course, one can say the other two were the masterminds, but the defendant was nevertheless a party to the joint enterprise, and I do not think the court should be more lenient to the defendant as such.
15. I do not see anything that allows me to depart from the sentencing guidelines applicable to this type of construction site burglaries.
16. I adopt 30 months’ imprisonment as a starting point.
17. After one-third discount for the defendant’s plea of guilty, he is sent to prison for 20 months.
|
(J. Lam)
Deputy District Judge |
|