|
DCCC 623/2015
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 623 OF 2015
--------------------
--------------------
| Before: |
HH Judge C P Pang |
| Present: |
Mr Paddy Law, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Wong Lai-lin Phyllis, of P Wong & Co Solicitor,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 non-domestic premises. The burgled premises was Tai Hing Restaurant, located at Ground Floor, Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan.
2. At about 1 am on 31 May 2015, the police found the defendant walking out from the rear lane of the restaurant. He was acting furtively.
3. The defendant was later intercepted and searched by the police. Inside his trousers pocket and a reusable bag carried by him were found cash, including coins, of $2,719.50. The defendant first claimed that he opened a fruit stall in Sham Shui Po and he was taking the coins found on him back to his home in Tin Shui Wai. He went to the rear lane to answer the call of nature.
4. Investigations revealed that the metal gate and the wooden door of the rear entrance of the restaurant were left ajar. The drawer of the cashier counter was opened with signs of ransacking.
5. The defendant was arrested for burglary. Under caution, he admitted having committed the burglary of the restaurant because he owed debts of over $100,000.
6. The defendant is 50 years of age. He has seven criminal convictions, some related to dishonest offences and one for burglary.
7. In mitigation, Miss Wong, solicitor for the defendant, informs the court that the defendant is married, living with his wife and three daughters. He was a dim sum chef earning $17,000 a month. He lost this job after he was arrested for this case. He committed the offence because of financial difficulty.
8. It is submitted that the present offence was not a serious type of its kind. No tools were used and the offence was not committed in a sophisticated way. He was acting alone.
9. The usual starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment. In this case, I see no reason to depart from the usual starting point.
10. I have considered whether the starting point should be enhanced because of the previous record of the defendant.
11. Having considered the fact that the only previous record for burglary was back in 1995 (ie 20 years ago) and the last criminal record of the defendant being 10 years ago, I find that it is not necessary to enhance the sentence in the present case, as he has stayed away from committing crimes for 10 years.
12. I must, however, warn the defendant that, should he commit further dishonest offences, the court is entitled to increase the sentence on the ground that he is a persistent offender.
13. I take 2½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point in this case.
14. I will give the defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty.
15. I cannot find any other mitigating factors in this case.
16. The defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
| |
(C.P. Pang) |
| |
District Judge |
|