HKSAR v. LO LAP KAN

DCCC892/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 892 OF 2010

----------------------

--------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

--------------------------

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to four offences of burglary, each contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210; and to one offence of theft, contrary to section 9. You admitted the Brief Facts and I convicted you. Charges 1 and 3 being theft and burglary respectively were ordered to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.

2.  Briefly, the facts as amended by Mr Necholas were as follows.  Tse Kwai-chung is the proprietor of Sun Chun Kei Marine Store, 34 Pau Chung Street, Hunghom.  His business includes the purchase of scrap metal.  At about 7.30 am on the morning of 18 June of last year, you came and asked to borrow a trolley.  About 10 to 15 minutes later, you returned to the store with the trolley laden with heaps of metal clips and a carton box.  You agreed between you that $1.90 a catty would be paid for the metal.  Mr Tse paid you $249 for 150 kilograms, and you then left.

3.  Mr Tse learnt from his neighbours of the theft of metal clips in the area.  Being suspicious, he phoned the police and gave your description.  The next day, he was asked to go to Hunghom Police Station where he identified you as the person who sold him the quantity of metal referred to above.

4.  The quantity of metal, which included a large number of metal drainpipe brackets and clips, was the property of Cheong Hing Air-Conditioning Engineering Limited.  They had been kept in a locked metal cage at the rear of the company premises at 25 Hung Kwong Street, Hunghom on 17 June of last year.  On 18 June, the police made inquiries of the proprietor, Mr Hau Hau‑cheong.  He checked and found the cage broken into and the lock, metal chain and pipe bracket missing.  He accompanied the police to the Sun Chun Kei Marine Store where he identified the property (which is Charge 6).  Its value was $2,000.

5.  As a result of Mr Tse’s report to the police, officers made inquiries in the area.  At sometime after 8 pm(am?) on 18 June, police officers saw you climb from a shop at the ground floor of 12 Hung Kwong Street, holding an electric drill.  They intercepted you.  You admitted stealing from there.  You were arrested and cautioned.  As this took place, Mr Chu Kai-man, the proprietor of Sky Ring Recycling Limited with premises at 24 Lung Kwong Street passed by and immediately identified you as the man who had sold him electric and copper wire on 14 June (which is Charge 5) for which you were paid $1,500.

6.  Mr Chan Wing-kei, proprietor of Chung Kin Engineering Company at No. 33 Hung Kwong Street, left his company premises at 4 pm on 13 June and secured the door.  The following day, he found the door prised open and the premises ransacked.  He found a trolley, copper and electronic wire, five drills and other property to a total value of $10,810 missing.  He contacted the police.  He found the wire and the trolley at a second-hand store, Mr Chu’s recycling plant.

7.  Mr Li Kwok-ling, proprietor of the shop under renovation at 12 Hung Kwong Street, later identified the electric drill as his property, having left it inside the shop after finishing work the day before, that is, about 6.30 pm on 17 June.  That is Charge 7.

8.  In a video-recorded interview under caution, you admitted to being involved in two other burglaries.  One was at the Wing Loi Engineering & Trading Company, 21 Hung Kwong Street between 5 and 6 May last when the lock on the rear metal door of the premises was broken and a quantity of MAKITA electric grinders, drills, pneumatic breakers and other articles referred to in Charge 2 were missing.  The total value of the property missing was $42,010, and the goods were sold to recycling shops in the To Kwa Wan area.

9.  Also between 22 and 24 May last, six copper earth plates hung on the walls of the Mezzanine, 2nd, 4th and 6th floors on the Front Block and the 5th and 7th floors of the Rear Block of 69-73 Kai Tak Road, Kowloon City were stolen.  You admitted to the theft and selling them.  The total cost to replace them was $4,000.  That is Charge 4.

10.  You admitted to four previous convictions on two occasions, all of which involved dishonesty.  Your last sentence had been one of detention centre. 

11.  In view of your youth, I asked for a probation officer’s background report and a training centre report.  Those reports are now before me.  I have considered them fully.  I note that training centre is recommended in your case.  Mr Pang on your behalf indicated that you accepted the contents of the report and provided mitigation.

12.  I was told that you had had a difficult childhood, both of your parents having been in trouble.  Your father resorted to corporal punishment to control you when you were young.  He also used violence upon the person of your mother and, on one occasion, you intervened to protect your mother.  As a result of difficulties at home, both you and your younger brother had spent time in children’s homes.  You had achieved very little at school.  On leaving school, you had had various jobs, none of which seem to have lasted very long.  The present offences resulted from your need for money and the fact that you felt you could earn easy money by committing these offences.

13.  Mr Pang also read out two letters, one from yourself and one from your mother.  I do not intend to repeat the contents. You, basically, ask for leniency and promise to go straight on release.  Your mother too pleads for leniency on your behalf and blames herself for not controlling you when you were younger.

14.  Mr Pang told me that you prefer not to go to training centre.  You would rather go to prison as you felt a prison sentence would be shorter and allow you to reunite with your mother at an earlier date. Mr Pang also did tell me that he had advised you that training centre was more appropriate.  He asked me for leniency on your behalf.

15.  I turn now to the sentence.  We are dealing with five offences for burglaries and a theft.  These are serious.  Only a custodial sentence is appropriate.  In the case of an adult of mature years, this would result in a lengthy term of imprisonment.  You have expressed the view that you would rather go to prison rather than training centre.  However, in HKSAR v Choi Wai Man(?) MA669 of 1998, the judge said this:  

“The appellant’s personal views as to where he is to be kept in custody are totally irrelevant. It is in his interests that he be given a period of rigorous training in the hope he can make something of his life and learn a useful trade. The best opportunity he has of that is for him to be in the training centre.”

16.  Against that background, I will consider what you have said.  I accept that you have had a difficult upbringing, but so have many others who have not resorted to crime.  It is to your favour that having been arrested by the police, you were entirely co-operative and that you have pleaded guilty to the offences.   

17.  The choice before me is simple.  It is either imprisonment or training centre.  Training centre provides an element of training, an element of guidance followed by a substantial period of supervision.  It is both punitive and rehabilitative.  Prison of course is the easy option.  However, having considered all the factors in this case, it is my opinion that you would benefit and indeed society would benefit more from you obtaining a period of training.  Therefore, whilst noting what you have to say, I do impose a training centre order on each offence.