HKSAR v. GURUNG PRAKASH

DCCC423/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 423 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  You have pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.  You admitted the brief facts, and I convicted you.

2.  The brief facts were as follows.  At about 12.20 am on 13 March last, PW1, a security guard at a construction site at 59-600 Canton Road, Yau Ma Tei, heard some noises outside.  He left his office on the 1st floor of the site to go and investigate.  Upon entering the temporary changing room on the same floor, he saw you squatting and putting electric wires into a nylon bag.  He left quietly and called the police. 

3.  Shortly thereafter the police arrived and cordoned off the site.  A police officer saw you climb on to the scaffolding.  Upon his request you climbed down and you were intercepted.  Two electric wires were found in the nylon bag.  You were arrested and cautioned.  Later under interview you admitted the offence.  You said that you had committed that offence because of lack of money.  The proprietor of the construction company identified the wires and the bag as the company property. 

4.  You admitted to five previous convictions, none of which were similar.  In mitigation, Mr Li, on your behalf stressed that the offence itself was relatively trivial.  He stressed your plea of guilty and that it was the first time you had committed an offence of this type.  He told me that you had become unemployed due to ill health and you were finding it difficult to support your wife and two daughters.  Your poor financial situation had led to marital discord.

5.  In sentencing you I took into account the facts of the case, the nature and type of the charge and of course the mitigation advanced on your behalf.  I noted that you were entirely cooperative with the police both at the scene and at the station.  In your entering the construction site you created no damage.  The goods were of small value, some $500 and were in fact recovered.  Also I noted that this was your first offence of dishonesty.

6.  Therefore in the circumstances, I resolve to take a slightly lower starting point than normal.  The starting point I take is one of 27 months reduced to 18 months for your plea of guilty.  You will go to prison for 18 months.