|
DCCC1253/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1253 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Ngan Tsz-kit (D3) |
|
----------------------
|
Date:
|
20 April 2011 at 9.47 am
|
|
Present:
|
Mr Ho Chi-ming, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Rupert Spicer, instructed by T C Lau & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
Attempted burglary (企圖入屋犯法罪)
|
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted burglary.
2. The offence was committed on 21 August 2010, at premises which are described as a store beneath the stairs of the ground floor of Kam Wah House in Choi Hung Estate in Wong Tai Sin.
3. The defendant and two others youths, one aged 15 and the other aged 22, were seen by an occupant of the adjoining premises behaving suspiciously in the vicinity of the store.
4. The witness contacted the police, the police attended, and when a police officer arrived, he saw that the elder of the three youths, a youth aged 22, was interfering with a combination lock, one of two locks, which secured the store.
5. The store was used by a newsagency vendor, who lived in the premises. He stored his goods there and also his petty cash. When the police arrived, the older youth was trying to open the lock and the defendant and the other youth involved were acting as lookouts.
6. All three defendants were arrested. Under caution, the defendant said that the older male who was holding the padlock asked him to act as a lookout at the material time.
7. Nothing was stolen nor was any damage caused.
8. The defendant has a clear record. He has come to the attention of the police previously in 2007 in connection with a domestic theft, for which he was given a Superintendent’s Discretion.
9. The charge of burglary of non-domestic premises attracts a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment. Notwithstanding that, I decided to adjourn the case on the last occasion for various reports to be obtained.
10. Those reports disclose that the defendant was made the subject of a 12 months’ care or protection order in June 2007 and also received residential service at Holland hostel from 31 October 2007 until 4 July 2008.
11. The report from the probation officer discloses that he had a positive attitude towards statutory guidance and made efforts in improving his behaviour.
12. After the expiry of the order the defendant dropped out of vocational training after studying for half a year.
13. The defendant obtained jobs but his work pattern was unstable. After work, he hung around with friends in the vicinity of his home. He went to karaokes and games centres and admitted that he had touched ketamine, and later cannabis in September 2010.
14. Having considered the report and also the report obtained from the representative of the Commissioner of Correctional Services, I have decided that the appropriate sentence for this offence is one of detention in a rehabilitation centre.
15. I strongly urge that the defendant makes the best possible use of this sentence. If he re-offends, he will go to prison. Once he starts that road, it is very difficult to obtain employment.
16. This is an opportunity for you to obtain some training whilst in the rehabilitation centre and I suggest you make the most of it.
17. You have had a chance of supervision in 2007 and it does not seem to have done you any good. You have parents who are very concerned about you. You are very fortunate to have their support given your behaviour on the past. Do not let them down in the future.
|