HKSAR v. LAU PAK LUN (also known as LAU FUK CHUEN and LAU YIU KWAN)

DCCC 1070/2020

[2021] HKDC 221

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1070 OF 2020

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of burglary of a shop, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the summary of facts admitted by the defendant today.  In summary at around 7 p.m. on 16 August 2020 Ms Yau, the owner of a boutique situated on the Ground Floor, No. 101 Cheung Sha Wan Road in Sham Shui Po, secured the front and rear doors of the shop before leaving.

3.  At around 1:42 a.m. on 17 August 2020 WPC 24859 saw the defendant standing outside the shop using a pair of pliers to cut the padlock of the roller shutter.  The defendant eventually succeeded in opening the roller shutter and entered the shop. 

4.  When the defendant ran out of the shop at around 1:45 a.m. he was intercepted by the police.  Under caution and in two subsequent video recorded interviews the defendant admitted that he was unemployed so he committed the burglary.

5.  Ms Yau returned to the shop and saw that the padlock on the roller shutter had been cut and there were prize marks around the keyhole.  Ms Yau confirmed nothing was missing from the shop.  The cost of replacing the padlock was $800.

Mitigation

6.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submission of Mr Hung on behalf of the defendant who is 59, divorced and lives alone.   Mr Hung informs the court that due to the pandemic the defendant could only find odd jobs and worked only ten days a month. 

Burglary

7.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of commercial premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

8.  Mr Hung refers to the fact nothing was stolen.  The fact the defendant had not stolen anything is not in my view a mitigating factor.   The defendant was caught red handed. 

Persistent offender

9.  The defendant has appeared in court on 10 occasions amassing a total of 30 convictions, including 15 convictions for burglary.  The defendant last appeared in court on 16 August 2017 when he was sentenced in DCCC 385/2017 to 2 years’ imprisonment for burglary.

10.  The Reasons for Sentence in DCCC 385/2017 reveal that the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for burglary of a restaurant which, by reason of the defendant’s previous convictions, was enhanced by 6 months to 3 years’ imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment[2].

11.  Mr Hung submits that most previous offences were committed prior to 2011 and asks that any enhancement is proportionate to the starting point[3].  Whilst the defendant committed many of his offences prior to 2011, he was convicted of eight offences of burglary in 2011 for which he received a sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment.   This was followed by the burglary in 2017 when he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

12.  Previous sentences clearly have not deterred the defendant who continues to commit burglary when he is in need of money.  I am satisfied the defendant is a persistent offender in offences of burglary. 

13.  Taking into account that the defendant was last released from prison in July 2018 and therefore remained out of trouble for two years, I am satisfied the same enhancement as in DCCC 385/2017 of 6 months’ imprisonment to 3 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

14.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.