|
DCCC 273/2017
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 273 OF 2017
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
| Present: |
Mr Kenneth Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Tong Chor Yin, Augustine of Messrs. Augustine C.Y.
Tong & Co. assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
defendant |
| Offence: |
[1] Burglary（入屋犯法罪） |
| |
[2] Attempted burglary （企圖入屋犯法罪） |
-----------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-----------------------------------------
1. The defendant, a 26-year-old man, has twice tried to burgle the same container office on a construction site in Hung Hom within the space of two months.
2. He pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary and another count of attempted burglary.
3. Both burglaries occurred at night-time when the workers had gone off duty with only a watchman on site to guard the place. Construction equipment was kept in the office the door of which was secured with a padlock.
4. On the first occasion (28 November 2016), the noises coming from the office had caught the attention of the watchman who thus went over to have a look to see what was going on, and inside the office there was the defendant who, being questioned, lied to the watchman that he was a worker from the site. Having made a note of his personal particulars from his ID card as well as his construction site worker registration card, the watchman let him go.
5. Shortly afterwards the watchman discovered a broken padlock on a plastic water barrier next to the office. A report was therefore made to the police. It turned out that the defendant was not an employee of the construction company.
6. Consequently, security measures have been stepped up for the office by adding an iron gate to the door with more padlocks.
7. About two months later (24 January 2017), the defendant came again. This time before he could enter the office, the watchman caught him in the act of cutting the padlock to the door with a bolt cutter. The defendant took to his heels but was soon apprehended after a short chase. The watchman recognized him to be the same person who sneaked into the office two months ago. Police were called and the defendant was taken into custody.
8. Investigating the case, the police found that the padlock to the gate was cut broken lying on the ground. A burglar tool, the bolt cutter, which the defendant used to cut open the gate, was recovered from the scene. The cost of repair was about $700.
9. The defendant is a married man whose wife has just given birth to a baby girl two months before. He works as a construction site worker on a causal basis earning on average $28,000 a month.
10. He has one prior conviction of possession of dangerous drugs in 2017 for which he had to do prison time for 2 months.
11. The court heard that the reason the defendant committed the crimes was because he was out of work at the time; with Chinese New Year around the corner and being the sole bread winner, he just had to find ways to make some quick money for the family.
12. In his letter to the court, the defendant expresses his remorse for what he’d done, apologizes to his family members for making their lives a misery, and promises to turn over a new leaf.
13. Counsel for the defendant stressed that there are no aggravating features in the instant case – no weapon used, no one was injured, no substantial losses caused to the victim etc.
14. This is a non-domestic burglary; a term of 30 months’ imprisonment is the usual norm for such an offence in the absence of aggravating features.
15. In the course of his breaking-in he had damaged some property, however, given the damage only confining to padlocks on each occasion, I do not consider it amounting to sufficient aggravation which would justify an increase in sentence over and above the norm.
16. Insofar as his mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there isn’t anything of substance.
17. For the reasons given above, I take 30 months as starting point for each of the offence, reduce it by one-third to reflect his plea; there being nothing else to justify a further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for each offence.
18. Taking into account the totality principle, I order that 4 months of charge 1 should run consecutively to the term of charge 2, the total term is one of 24 months’ imprisonment.
|