|
DCCC 925/2019
[2020] HKDC 812
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 925 OF 2019
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
| Present: |
Mr Lucas Lai Kin Hei, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
|
Mr David Rex Boyton, instructed by Chan & Ho, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
-----------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-----------------------------------------
Charge
1. The defendant is charged with one count of burglary. It is alleged that he, having entered as trespasser of the meter room on Floor 33 of Chui Shue House, Lei Muk Shue Estate on 7 July 2019, stole nine metallic clips therein. Later, the charge is amended to accuse he entered the place as trespasser with the intent to steal therein.
2. The defendant pleads not guilty to any burglary but admits to the theft of a backpack and its contents. He claims he found the backpack at the doorway of the meter room and appropriated it out of greed. Then he went into the meter room to urinate. When he came out he was intercepted by the security guards.
3. The defendant’s lesser plea is not accepted by the prosecution.
4. After trial, I convict the defendant on his own admission of the theft of the backpack and its contents.
Facts
5. The facts of the case have been well set out in my judgment just delivered.
6. The defendant lived on Floor 18 of the building in question. I accept the defendant was, at the material time, off work and went straight to meet his female friend living at Room 3317 of the same building. On the way, he felt the urge to piss. When he passed the meter room on Floor 33, he wanted to go inside to urinate. There was a backpack at the doorway. He became greedy and appropriated it. Then he went inside the meter room to piss and check for his female friend’s message further. When he came out he was stopped by the security guards.
7. In that building earlier that morning, someone or some people else had stolen the valuable lightning conduits from the meter rooms of Floors 29 - 34. The thief or thieves had removed the bracket covers before stealing the conduits. The conduits were not found at the defendant’s home on Floor 18 or elsewhere. There is no evidence the defendant was involved in the theft of those conduits.
8. Apparently, the thief or thieves had left the backpack behind on Floor 33 which just contained 16 bracket covers and a screwdriver. They were all objects of low value.
9. The defendant is convicted on his own admission of the theft of the backpack and its contents before he entered the meter room on Floor 33 to piss.
Record
10. The defendant is aged 36. He has a clear record.
Mitigation
11. Defence Counsel emphasises that the defendant is a man of clear record. He came to the backpack on that occasion and stole it out of greed. It contained objects of low value.
12. Counsel says the defendant last worked in a finance company, earning about $20,000. At the material time, he lived with his parents on Floor 18 of that building. He is not married yet. Counsel asks me to consider imposing a fine on the defendant for this petty theft.
Sentence
13. The defendant is guilty of theft by finding. He picked up the backpack on that occasion. Inside the backpack there were only petty items of small value.
14. The defendant is a man of clear record. He admits his guilt of theft by finding. In the circumstances, a fine would be sufficient.
15. I adopt a starting point of $3,000. The defendant pleads guilty at an early stage to theft. He should have the full one-third discount. I therefore fine the defendant $2,000.
|