HKSAR v. AU MAN TAI

DCCC1369/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1369 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.  What occurred is this: PW1 is the Principal of the Melody Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten at the Ground Floor, Block 1, Prime View Garden, Tuen Mun.  At about 7 pm on 23 May last, she secured the doors, windows and locked the cash cabinet in her office before leaving.  At about 8 am the next day she returned and found the cabinet unlocked, $2,600 was missing.  A door had been prised.  The police were called.  They found three palm prints belonging to you on the cabinet.

3.  On 16 September last, you were arrested and cautioned.  To put it shortly, you admitted the offence.  In a video-recorded interview later, you admitted the following:  On the night of 23 May you walked past the kindergarten.  Being short of money, you decided to burgle it. You gained access by breaking a door.  You also broke the cabinet in the principal’s office and stole $2,000 then left. 

4.  You admitted to nine previous convictions and one subsequent conviction which did not appear on your record.  Those convictions occurred on six different occasions.  The last offence took place after this present offence.  For that, which also I believe was a matter of burglary, you are serving a period of imprisonment of 27 months and your earliest date of release will be 28 November of this year.  On your record there appears a suspended sentence.  You are not in breach of that suspended sentence because that was imposed after the commission of the present offence. That is still in force.

5.  Mr Fu entered mitigation on your behalf.  Not in any way wishing to criticise him, he said little because there was little to be said, the only substantial mitigation being your plea of guilty.  You are 20 years of age, single, educated to Form 5.  Your family comprises your father of 56, stepmother and two elder sisters.  Unfortunately your mother is deceased. Mr Fu said this burglary was not premeditated, it was opportunist in nature. At the time of the offence, you were not equipped with breaking equipment. 

6.  He also made the very valid point that the other burglary should have been dealt with at the same time as this, the two burglaries should have been held together so that the court could properly apply the principle of totality.  I do echo that criticism.  I can see absolutely no reason on the face of it why these two matters could not have been heard together.  It seems to require very little organisation and in my opinion it is wrong in principle to divide them like this.  It is my wish that the Department of Justice should look into this matter.  There may, of course, be some good reason of which I am not aware.

7.  I turn now to the sentence.  This is a standard non‑domestic burglary.  It committed without pre-planning and I am prepared to accept that you were not equipped with breaking equipment.  It is also apparent from the facts that you were entirely co-operative with the police when arrested.  The money that was taken was modest in value, $2,600, and it is to your credit that you did not ransack the premises. 

8.  Against that, it has to be acknowledge you have an appalling record for one so young and I venture to suggest that if you do not improve yourself you will be spending a great deal of the rest of your life in and out of prison.

9.  In this case, what I am going to do is this, I take a starting point of 30 months which is the standard starting point for such an offence.  That will be reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty. Also I will apply the principle of totality.  The sentences will be served in this way: 10 months will be concurrent and 10 months will be consecutive.