HKSAR v. SIN SHUI ON

DCCC 123/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 123 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary. He has accepted the facts presented by the prosecution. I have convicted him of the offence.

2.  The facts establish that the defendant was involved in a burglary at a construction site at Lohas Park Phase 3.  He was discovered outside the site in a squatting position, tidying up a rucksack, and some 10 metres away from him another rucksack was found containing 322 pieces of copper pipe, a torch and two pairs of labour gloves.

3.  The defendant was arrested, and under caution he immediately admitted that he had stolen the copper pipes and intended to sell them.  He conducted a video-recorded interview later that day and made further admissions.  He had taken an MTR train to arrive at the site around midnight on 30 December.  He had entered the site, climbed up scaffolding to the 1st floor, and then walked up staircases.  He had found the copper pipes and cut them into smaller pieces, placed them in the rucksack, and then lowered them to the ground.

4.  Later investigation appeared to show the defendant had entered the site through an unlocked door, that the site was a partially-constructed residential project, and the value of the pipes is around about $6,000 and belonged to an engineering company that was installing sewage pipes there.

5.  These facts clearly established the offence charged, and I convicted the defendant accordingly.

6.  The defendant’s antecedents and criminal record were agreed.  The antecedents show that the defendant is aged 56 years, that he has two children and was formerly married and has been living with his wife; became unemployed in April of 2013.  He has previous convictions, a total of 20 appearances in court involving some 26 charges.  He has one previous conviction for burglary, but it was back in 1981.  His offences largely appear to consist of petty theft and drug offences.  He has been in a drug addiction treatment centre as recently as 2004; otherwise, offences of imprisonment for theft culminating in a sentence of 18 months in 2009.  It can be described as a poor criminal record.

7.  Mitigation was advanced on behalf of the defendant.  As to his personal circumstances, he originally came to Hong Kong as an illegal immigrant.  He had a back injury due to an industrial accident which had limited his employment.  He had, however, managed to earn up to $16,000 a month up until April 2013.  Since then he had struggled with an unstable work pattern.  He had been married, and divorced in 2004.  His wife had fallen very ill with liver cancer, and returned to China for treatment, and in the last two to three years he had moved in with her and the children in order to see if he could provide some support to them.  The defendant has been a heroin addict.  I am told he no longer is, although he sometimes has taken methadone treatment.

8.  It was noted that the defendant obviously pleaded guilty.  He was remorseful; there is a letter expressing remorse.  He had been co‑operative with the police and had made a full admission very early on in the investigation.  There had been no forceful entry into the site - he had entered through an unlocked door; there was no violence involved; and the copper pipes were of what were described as a fairly low value item; and the defendant had not committed an offence in the last three years.

9.  The case can be classified as a non-domestic burglary.  The starting point for sentence for a person of clear record committing this offence would be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  Although the defendant has a poor criminal record, I do not consider it to be an aggravating factor in this particular case.  The defendant has personal mitigation, but none of that would necessarily reduce the starting point for sentence.

10.  I will adopt the normal starting point for sentence in this case, which is one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is, of course, entitled to a deduction of one‑third for his plea of guilty.

11.  That will leave a final sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment, and that will be the sentence of the court.