|
DCCC 357/2018
[2018] HKDC 1372
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 357 OF 2018
____________
____________
| Present: |
Mr Liu Yuen Ming, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Ms May Tam of Solomon C. Chong & Co,
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 charge of burglary of a recycling shop in Kowloon City, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].
2. In summary at about 4:30 p.m. on 26 February this year Mr Lui Kuen, proprietor of Kuen Kee Waste Paper Metal” recycling shop situated on the Ground Floor of 179 Kowloon City Road, kept about $25,000 in a drawer of a metal table[2].
3. At 5:05 p.m. the police saw the defendant, who was wearing a face mask, walking around furtively and peeping at various recycling shops along Kowloon City Road.
4. At 5:11 p.m. when there was nobody inside Kuen Kee and all the workers were busy outside the shop, the defendant entered the shop, opened the drawer and took out the money.
5. After leaving the shop the police intercepted the defendant and recovered $24,530 from the defendant’s right hand.
6. Under caution the defendant admitted stealing the money out of greed.
Mitigation
7. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Ms Tam together with the mitigation letter written by the defendant. I take into account the defendant’s girlfriend suffers from depression and requires his care and attention.
Starting point
8. The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
9. Ms Tam asks the court to take into account no force or violence was used in the burglary and no damage was caused to the shop. Although the defendant walked into the shop while nobody was inside, I do not regard this as an opportunistic burglary.
10. The defendant was clearly looking for something to steal. This was not burglary of vacant premises or where the defendant passed by an open door and stole food or items of little value[3].
11. I am satisfied a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. Although the defendant has appeared in court on ten previous occasions accumulating a total of twelve convictions, including convictions for burglary and attempt robbery, taking into account the last conviction was in 2009 and the defendant was released from prison in November 2012, I do not enhance the sentence by reason of his previous offending.
12. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
| |
(D. J. DUFTON) |
| |
District Judge
|
[1] Cap 210.
[2] In the summary of facts, the table is referred to as a cash cashier. Photographs showing the drawer and the entrance to the shop were submitted to court. Photographs 13-15 show the drawer and the table and photograph 16 shows the entrance to the shop. The table can be seen on the right side of the entrance.
[3] See for example HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 260 and HKSAR v Chau Man Ying CACC 439/2011.
|