HKSAR v. LEE MING WA

DCCC 874/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.874 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant faces 4 charges of burglary. He pleaded guilty to 3 of them, admitted to the summary of facts and was convicted. Charge 2 was ordered to be kept on file, not to be proceeded with against the defendant without the leave of the court.

Facts

2.  Between 23^rd and 28^th May 2011, the defendant burgled 3 different stalls that were all located in the Kowloon City Market at Nga Tsin Wai Road in Kowloon City.

3.  The burglaries all took place after the stalls had closed for the day. In relation to charges 1 and 3 which both took place between 23^rd and 24^th May, staff for the stalls had closed the stalls between 6:45pm and 7pm and then left the market. Upon return the following day at 6am, they both found things stolen from their stalls. The stolen things were 10 metal bowls valued at about $300 and coins of about $1,000 respectively.

4.  It was during the defendant’s commission of the burglary of another stall in charge 4 that the defendant was intercepted by patrolling Police officers and arrested.

5.  At around 10:25pm, just about 3 hours after the that had been closed, the defendant was seen inside the stall. He was carrying a rucksack and tampering with a cashier box on a table. Police officer intercepted and cautioned the defendant. Under caution, he admitted that he entered the stall with intent to steal. The defendant later also admitted that he brought along the rucksack from home intending to use it to store the stolen properties.

6.  Under further cautions, the defendant confessed to the burglary of the shops in charges 1 and 3 as well. He said he had already spent the stolen money on foods while he had discarded the 10 metal bowls at an unknown location.

Previous convictions

7.  The defendant has one previous conviction for theft, but that offence was committed after the defendant had been arrested and been granted bail for the present burglary case. The defendant was therefore of clear record at the time of the commission of the present burglary offences.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant is 39 years old today. He was born in China and educated up to form 3 level. He came to Hong Kong in 2000.  The defendant was unemployed at the time of arrest but had previously been working as a hawker.

9.  The defendant had written a letter, informing the court how he had been influenced by his undesireable friends into drug taking which had led to his downfall. The defendant has now found religion and is on his way to rehabilitation.

10.  A letter from “Operation Dawn Ltd”, a gospel drug rehabilitation centre, was submitted, informing the court that the defendant had applied for drug treatment and rehabilitation on 21^st June 2011 and was admitted to their centre on 5^th July 2011. It is the view of the General Secretary of the operation that the defendant showed a positive attitude towards the treatments being offered.

11.  Another letter is from Mr. Lee of the Church of the Good Shepherd, telling the court about the defendant’s remorse and how the church will assist in the defendant’s rehabilitation.

Sentencing tariffs

12.  The normal starting point for burglary of a non-domestic premises is that of 30 months’ imprisonment. 

Sentence

13.  I find that even if I accept that the defendant committed the buglaries because of his drug addiction, it is not ground for departing from the sentencing tariff. I am however mindful of the fact that the defendant, at the age of 38 when he committed the offences during the short period of time, had previously managed to keep a clear record, and I think he should be entitled to some discount for that.

14.  Having said that, the defendant was on a burglary spree, although the burglaries are certainly not of the more serious kind of similar offences. No instruments were used and the market would not have been too crowded given that the shops should mostly have been closed.

15.  Yet, as I said, there is no reason to depart from the tariff and I will adopt a 30 months’ imprisonment starting point for charges 1, 3 and 4, reducing them to 20 months’ imprisonment in recognition of the defendant’s guilty plea.

Totality

16.  The offences in charges 1 and 3 were committed on the same day and in the same market. The offence in charge 4 was just 5 days later and in the same market.

17.  Bearing in mind the principle of totality, I will order that 4 months of charge 3 be served consecutively to the sentence in charge 1, and 12 months of charge 4 be served consecutively to the rest of the sentence. In other words, 20+4+12=36 months’ imprisonment.

18.  As I had mentioned before, the defendant had managed to keep a clear record until the present offences were committed, I will give him a further 2 months discount and sentence him for this case to a total of 34 months’ imprisonment.