HKSAR v. LAW WAI HING

 DCCC1155/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1155 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.

2.  The first offence was committed on 9 May 2010 at the Medical Skin Treatment Centre on the 17th floor of a building in Jardine’s Bazaar, Causeway Bay, where he stole $1,468.

3.  The second offence was committed on 20 July, or between that date and 22 July. He entered the Actel Pan Asia premises, which are on the 21st floor of the China Resources Building in Wan Chai, and there he stole a computer notebook, a $1,000 Singapore currency, US$300, £200, three passports, two identity cards and two driving licences.

4.  The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that, on 9 May 2010, the premises of the Medical Skin Treatment Centre were secured and, at 10 o'clock the morning, it was discovered that cash had been taken from an unlocked drawer inside an office. The matter was reported to the police.

5.  In relation to Charge 2, the Actel Pan Asia Building or premises were secured at 5.20 on 20 July. Two days later, at 8 o'clock, staff entered the premises, and a member of staff discovered that his room inside the premises had been prised open and the property the subject of the 2nd charge had been stolen.

6.  The circumstances in which the defendant was arrested are that, on 4 September, at about 11 pm, a security guard working in premises on Ice House Street in Central spotted the defendant entering the building and acting suspiciously. The police were alerted and the defendant was subsequently arrested and, under caution, admitted the two offences the subject of the charges.

7.  To gain access to the premises, he said he used a card to open the door. None of the property has been recovered. The money was spent and other items were thrown away. He sold the computer for a thousand dollars.

8.  The defendant has a number of previous convictions. He has appeared before the court on 17 previous occasions in relation to 34 offences, and 22 of those offences were for theft and 11 were for burglary. His criminal career spanned 1975 to 2005. I note from his record that his last conviction for burglary was in 1994, some 17 years ago.

9.  In mitigation I was told by defence counsel that the defendant is very remorseful, and he fully cooperated with the police when he was arrested. I was told the defendant committed the offences because of his financial problems. He was unable to find a job at the time and did not want to rely on public assistance. I am told he has a mother who is 85 years of age who does not enjoy good health, and he is responsible for taking her on regular occasions for check-up to the Queen Mary Hospital. She has difficulty walking and uses a Zimmer frame. It is therefore necessary for her to be taken by taxi for those appointments.

10.  In relation to the offences themselves, it was emphasised that there was no violence, no weapon was used, and the defendant knew that the premises would be vacant when he entered.

11.  As regards the defendant’s personal background, he is 50 years of age. He was born in Hong Kong and he was educated to Form 4 standard. He previously worked as a driver on a casual basis, earning $8,000 per month, but became unemployed in May of 2009. He is married with two grown up sons. His wife is 48, and she works part-time as a saleslady in a small supermarket, earning $3,000 per month.

12.  The main mitigation in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty and cooperated with the police. Non-domestic burglaries attract a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment. That is the sentence I intend to impose in respect of each of the charges. I will start at 2½ years and reduce those sentences by one-third to reflect the guilty plea and cooperation of the defendant. So in respect of each case, each charge, the sentence will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment.

13.  I have to consider the question of totality. These are two separate offences, one committed two months after the other at different premises. Taking into account all the circumstances and the background of the defendant, I have decided that the sentence in respect of Charge 2, four months of that sentence should run consecutive to the sentence for Charge 1.

14.  So the defendant will go to prison for 24 months.