|
DCCC317/2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 317 OF 2009
----------------------
----------------------
| Date: |
24 August 2009 at 9.51 am |
| Present: |
Ms Sezen Chong, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Raymond Fong, instructed by Messrs V Hau & Chow, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
------------------------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
------------------------------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The particulars of the offence are that on Christmas Eve last year, he entered a building known as Le Jardine Club which is in Lan Kwai Fong in Central and stole a CCTV camera and two packets of cigarettes. He used to work at these premises.
2. On the afternoon of 24 December, one of the staff was working at the Club and found that the CCTV camera installed above the cashier counter of the Club and two packets of cigarettes were missing. On viewing the CCTV footage, it was discovered that at about 2.43 in the morning, the defendant had entered the Club, ransacked the cashier counter and dismantled the CCTV camera. The defendant had worked for the Club from March 2007 till May of that year, so he was obviously recognised by the staff of the premises. The value of the stolen properties is $3,832. Obviously, his previous employers had his address which they gave to the police and the police arrested him there.
3. The account clerk of the Club, when police went for investigation, told the police that the lock on the main door of the Club could not securely lock the door, and trespassers could easily push open the main door and enter the Club.
4. After the defendant was arrested, he was interviewed under caution and admitted the offence. He said he regretted the commission of the offence and asked for a chance.
5. The defendant has no previous convictions, but he has a subsequent conviction. Whilst on bail for this offence, he committed an offence of shoplifting, and in respect of that matter, was ordered to go to the drug addiction treatment centre in July of this year, and he is now in the drug addiction treatment centre.
6. The defendant is 20 years of age. He was 19 at the time this offence was committed. At the time of the offence, he had a clear record. He was born in Nepal and educated there. The defendant moved to Hong Kong in 2006, and he has worked in shops, bars and fast-food stores. His last job was as a bartender earning $9,000 a month. I am told that his mother has remarried, and he now has a young sister, and the mother and young sister and the new husband are now living in the United Kingdom. The defendant was planning to go to the UK to join his mother.
7. I am told that he regrets the commission of this offence. He had been celebrating his birthday and he had got drunk. He had gone to the premises to steal a couple of packets of cigarettes. Whilst doing that, he noticed the CCTV camera and fearing that he would have been captured on the camera, he dismantled it and later threw it away.
8. Two letters have been handed to the court. One of them is from the bar manager of a club called Club Vvio. That letter states that the defendant was employed by the Club from December 2008 to April 2009, describes the defendant as being hardworking, responsible and a dedicated employee with good working attitude. His employer states that he regards the defendant as a gentleman who shows great consideration to others and is able to work with others closely. I have also been given a letter from the defendant’s girlfriend. She says that he deeply regrets his commission of this offence and feels ashamed of what he has done, and she asks for a lenient sentence.
9. I am told that on the last occasion when the defendant was before the court, the case was adjourned for not only a DATC report but also training centre report but he was not eligible to go there because of the language problem.
10. The defendant would be aware that the usual starting point for this kind of offence is 2 and a half years’ imprisonment. This offence was not a sophisticated offence. The door of the premises was easily pushed open. At the time of the offence, the defendant was 19 years of age and had a clear record.
11. Taking into account all the circumstances, I have decided that the appropriate starting point should be 2 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant will therefore go to prison for 16 months.
|