HKSAR v. LAM SIU KEUNG

DCCC 28/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 28 OF 2011

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to three charges of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  In summary in the early hours of the 17th December last year the alarm of the library of the Chinese University was activated.  A security guard saw the defendant outside the library.  The defendant ran away but was soon intercepted and a report to the police made.  The police found a pair of labour gloves, a screwdriver, a torch and a bag of coins in the defendant’s bag. 

3.  Under caution the defendant admitted together with a friend he used the tools to steal from the University because he was in need of money.  They first prized open the window of the staff canteen but found nothing worth stealing (charge 1); prized open the window of the student canteen and stole the coins from a drawer (charge 3); and prized open the back door of the library but again found nothing worth stealing (charge 2).

4.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Wong, including that the defendant was cooperative on arrest admitting his involvement in three burglaries of different parts of the university.    

5.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 as applied in HKSAR v CHENG Wai-kai   CACC 338/2007). 

6.  The three burglaries were committed at the same time, on different parts of the Chinese University.  Clearly had the alarm not been activated and the defendant seen by the security guard then no doubt he would have continued looking for places within the university campus to steal money.  Taking into account the three burglaries were committed at the same time by two persons, equipped for burglary and who were clearly determined to break into premises within the university as shown by the photographs, I am satisfied a starting point of 3 years and 3 months imprisonment is appropriate for each offence.  A higher starting point would have been appropriate had the defendant not been cooperative in admitting three burglaries, which admission must clearly have assisted in the police investigation, in particular for charge 1 and to a lesser degree charge 3.     

7.  The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, having multiple convictions for offences of dishonesty, including 21 convictions for burglary. The defendant was last released from prison on the 6th December last year having served 2 years imprisonment for burglary.  Within 11 days the defendant was again committing burglary.  I am satisfied the proper starting points after trial are to be further increased by 9 months to 4 years imprisonment (see HKSAR v CHAN Pui-chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830).

8.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty he is sentenced to 2 years and 8 months imprisonment, concurrent on each charge.