|
DCCC1200/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1200 OF 2011
--------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chan Chiu-wai |
|
| -------------------------- |
| Before: |
H H Judge Anthea Pang |
| Date: |
14 December 2011 at 11.05 am |
| Present: |
Ms Margaret Lau, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Philip Tang, of Messrs Hampton, Winter & Glynn, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
-------------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
-------------------------------
The Charge and the Facts
1. The Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.
2. In the early hours of 29 September 2011, the Defendant entered the North Kwai Chung Market and went to Shop No. 100 on the 1st Floor. He then used a metal wire to prize open the roller shutter of the shop and took away 4 packets of dried fish maws with a total value of HK$45,000.
3. When the Defendant was making his way into a nearby building while carrying with him the stolen goods, his image was captured by the CCTV camera installed in that building. Upon arrest, the Defendant admitted the offence under caution.
Mitigation
4. The Defendant is now aged 46. He is married. His wife is a Mainlander and still resides in the Mainland. The Defendant was educated up to Form 3 level and, prior to his arrest, he worked as a public light bus driver, earning about HK$8,000 per month.
5. The Defendant has been before the court on 13 occasions with 18 convictions. 10 of those are “burglary” and “attempted burglary”. He was last sentenced to imprisonment on 25 March 2009 for a total term of 2½ years. He was discharged from the prison on 28 September 2010. Yet, within just one year, he committed the present offence.
6. In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant was fully co-operative and had offered his plea at an early stage. Mr. Tang also emphasized that as all the stolen properties had been recovered, the shop owner did not suffer any actual loss.
Sentencing the Defendant
7. This is a burglary of non-domestic premises. The sentencing guideline is one of 2½ years.
8. I have carefully considered the matters put forth in mitigation on behalf of the Defendant, other than his plea, I find nothing which would warrant reducing the sentence further. Taking into account his frank admission and his plea, I am going to give the Defendant a one-third reduction in sentence.
9. Mr. Tang told the court that on the day of the offence, the Defendant did not need to work as typhoon signal no. 8 was hoisted. He therefore committed the present offence. This shows that the Defendant has not been deterred by his previous prison terms from committing burglary and would engage himself in this criminal enterprise as and when he found the opportunity. On the information available, the Defendant, despite his employment, made use of his day off to burgle the shop.
10. This, coupled with the fact that the Defendant is a repeat offender of burglary and that he committed this offence only 1 year after his release from the prison, renders it necessary for me to enhance his sentence. By doing so, I am not sentencing the Defendant for his previous record. However, it is clear that the previous sentences imposed have not had sufficient deterrent effect on the Defendant. I am therefore going to increase the starting point from 2½ years to 3 years.
11. 3 years reduced by one-third is 2 years’ imprisonment. This is the term the Defendant is to serve in respect of the charge of burglary.
| |
(Anthea Pang) |
| |
District Judge |
|