|
DCCC 533/2021
[2022] HKDC 174
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 533 OF 2021
________________________
________________________
| Present: |
Mr Kalvin Chan, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
|
|
Mr Karl Keung instructed by Chan & Ho,
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 an audio control room in the Royal Plaza Hotel in Mong Kok, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].
2. Full particulars of the offence are set out in the summary of facts dated 10 February 2022 admitted by the defendant today. In summary at around 0645 hours on the 23 February 2021 the defendant was seen by Mr Chu and Mr Ng, staff members of the hotel, outside the security control room of the hotel.
3. Mr Chu noticed that the defendant had hung around his neck a headset connected to a device which the defendant was holding in his hand. When the defendant started talking nonsense Mr Chu asked him to leave.
4. At 0725 hours the same morning Mr Chan, a staff member of the hotel, saw from the CCTV the defendant squatting inside an elevator of the hotel but without pressing any buttons. Mr Chan and Mr Chu then went to the elevator and asked the defendant to leave. The defendant started talking nonsense again and refused to leave. When the police were called and SPC 33140 arrived the defendant then left the hotel.
5. Mr Chan subsequently checked the CCTV and discovered that the defendant had entered the Grand Ballroom of the hotel at 0109 hours that morning and left at 0548 hours wearing a headset.
6. Access to the ballroom at that time was for cleaning and only authorised staff were allowed to enter. The defendant having never been hired by the hotel was not authorised to enter the ballroom.
7. Around 0855 the same morning Mr Wong, a staff member of the hotel, checked the audio control room of the ballroom. Mr Wong found signs of ransacking and discovered a headset and an iPod had been stolen and a laptop computer had also been damaged. The headset was valued at $5,000 and the iPod $2,000.
8. The defendant was arrested at 0120 hours on 26 February 2021 when he was again found inside the hotel talking nonsense.
Mitigation
9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submission of Mr Keung, including that the defendant, who is 31 and single, has had no contact with his family since he was studying in Form 2 and suffers from drug induced psychosis[2].
10. I have read the psychiatric reports prepared when the defendant first appeared in the West Kowloon Magistracy in February 2021[3].
Burglary
11. Mr Keung invites the court to pass a lenient sentence given the modus operandi of the burglary was simple, involving no tools; the defendant’s somewhat loveless upbringing and that the defendant seems to be a victim of narcotics[4].
12. The correct starting point for a single burglary of commercial premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
13. The defendant has a poor criminal record. The defendant has appeared in court on 14 occasions and has been variously sentenced to probation, Rehabilitation Centre, DATC and imprisonment.
14. The defendant’s last two convictions are for burglary when he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment in August 2018 and September 2020. The defendant was released from prison on 12 January 2021 and committed the burglary just over one month later[5].
15. I am satisfied the defendant is a persistent offender and enhance the sentence by 3 months to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
16. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment.
17. Mr Keung submits that the defendant’s psychosis may explain his behaviour at the scene. Whilst sympathetic to anyone suffering from mental illness I am satisfied the fact that the defendant may have been acting under the influence of drug-induced psychosis is not a ground for further reducing the sentence.
18. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment.
|
(D. J. DUFTON) |
|
District Judge |
[1] Cap 210.
[2] See §2 of the defendant’s submission for plea and sentence.
[3] Copies of the reports are attached to the defendant’s submission for plea and sentence.
[4] See §5 of the defendant’s submission for plea and sentence.
[5] See §(f) of the antecedent statement.
|