|
DCCC1155/2008
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1155 OF 2008
----------------------
----------------------
Before: H H Judge Browne
Date: 23 March 2009 at 9.43 pm
|
Present:
|
Ms Cecilia Liang, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Kan Ding-yang Andrew, instructed by C.C. Lee & Co., assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the Defendant
|
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
Reasons for Sentence
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 24 September last year in Hong Kong he entered a building, a restaurant in Nathan Road, Kowloon and stole 46 bottles of wine and $200 in cash. The defendant entered the premises in the early hours of the morning. He prised open the wooden door at the rear entrance of the restaurant and broke the chain and padlock securing it. He forced open a cashbox inside the cashier counter and prised it open, taking $200 from inside that box. The defendant forced open a door of a cabinet in the bar area of the restaurant and stole the bottles of wine referred to in the charge which were valued totalling $11,250.
3. The defendant was arrested a few days later. He admitted having committed the offence. He described exactly what he had done and he said that he had sold six of the bottles of wine and obtained about $200 to 250 for each bottle.
4. The defendant has six previous court appearances. Two of those appearances were offences of burglary. In 2003 he was sent to the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre for an offence of burglary and the following year he was imprisoned for 18 months for an offence of burglary.
5. The defendant is 25 years of age. He is married but his wife lives in the mainland and he lives alone in Hong Kong. Sadly, whilst the defendant has been in custody his father has passed away; also his paternal grandfather has died. I am told that these events have caused the defendant to reflect on his position and he now regrets his misdemeanours in the past. As his learned counsel realistically tells the court, the only mitigation in this case is the guilty plea which has been entered and there are no mitigating features which would cause the court to depart from the usual starting point for an offence of this kind; namely, one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.
6. The defendant pleaded guilty so the sentence has reduced to a term of 20 months’ imprisonment.
|