HKSAR v. LO HING CHUN, JOHN

 DCCC427/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 427 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Lo Hing-chun, you have been convicted, after trial, of the offence of burglary.

2.  This burglary occurred during the afternoon of 10 March this year at the home of a neighbour. That neighbour was an elderly lady who lived alone in the flat directly above your flat in the building in which you lived in Tin Shui Wai. She left home at about 2 pm, and when she returned home she found the front gate to her flat open. You were still inside. You rushed out of the flat and ran downstairs. She found that you had stolen from her a sum of cash, two bank savings passbooks and name chops which she used for her banking.

3.  Initially you denied to the police that you were involved and claimed that you had seen someone who might have been the culprit in the vicinity. It was only after you had been identified by your neighbour at an identification parade that you admitted the offence. You said that you had spent all the money and thrown the rest of the property away.

4.  When you first admitted the offence to PC1889, you claimed that you had committed the offence to buy baby formula for your young daughter. Later you admitted that that was not entirely true, that while you had spent some for that purpose you had spent the other part of the money on horseracing and lending money to others.

5.  Even if your motive for stealing this money had been to provide for your family, it would have provided no justification for stealing the savings of this old lady.

6.  Burglary is a serious offence not simply because the property of others is stolen, but because it is a violation of somebody else’s home. It is very distressing to people in general, but particularly when they are elderly, to know that others have entered their house and been through their belongings.

7.  As I know Mr Fung has told you, the Court of Appeal said that the normal starting point for burglary of domestic premises is 3 years' imprisonment in a case of a first offender of full age. You are not a first offender. You have a long record of offences, including offences of dishonesty.

8.  In this case I am prepared, notwithstanding your previous record, to adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. You are a man with a supportive family and a very young child. It does appear that for some time before you had committed this offence you had been making an attempt to lead an honest life. That may have been connected with the fact that you had recently become the father of a young child.

9.  There are however no circumstances which warrant any discount from that starting point. Three years is therefore the sentence that I pass.