HKSAR v. CHAN KIN CHIM

DCCC 305/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 305 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of attempted burglary. He PNG to the 4^th charge, this Court ordered the charge to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court.

The facts of the case

2.  These offences took place in the same building, involved 3 different premises.

3.  At about 4 p.m. on 1/2/2011, PW1 heard the door bell twice, but found no one was outside his door.  He secured his door and left his flat.

4.  PW1 met the Defendant in the staircase and observed the Defendant used a metal wire to temper with the keyhole of the iron gate of the other 2 premises for a minute and then he left.

5.  When the police arrived, PW1 pointed out the Defendant to the police who found the “metal wire” in his trouser’s pocket.

6.  Under caution, the Defendant admitted that he wanted to prize open the gate of the 3 premises to see if there was anything that he could take it away.

Criminal record

7.  The Defendant had 11 previous convictions, none of them are similar.  Most of them related to possession / publishing of obscene articles.  3 were related to possession of dangerous drugs, the last conviction was in 2/2009 for an offence of possession of dangerous drugs.

Background of the Defendant

8.  The Defendant is now 51 years old. Divorced and lived alone in Hong Kong.  He has been unemployed for about 10 years and relied on public assistance of $1,600 per month for living.

Mitigation

9.  The Defense emphasized that the offences were taken place during day time, it only involved a simple tool, i.e. the straightened up paper clip and there was no other breaking up equipment was found with him. The iron gates were not damaged.  There was no other resident around to be frightened by the present of the Defendant.

Sentence

10.  In passing sentence, I bear in mind that the Defendant had PG to the charges and all the mitigating factors.

11.  It is well-established that three years’ imprisonment is in general the appropriate starting point for a single offence of burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age.

12.  These 3 offences were committed during day-time and the owners did not suffer any loss.

13.  In this connection, I adopted a starting point of 3 years for each charge and reduced to 2 years to reflect the guilty plea.

14.  4 months out of the sentences in charge 2 and 3 be run consecutively to charge 1.

15.  The total sentence is being 2 years and 8 months.