HKSAR v. LAI CHUN TONG

DCCC 325/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 325 OF 2012

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

____________________

Reasons for Sentence

____________________

Introduction

1.  The defendant is convicted on his own plea of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210).

Facts

2.  PW1 and her family members live in a 4-storey village house at No.210 Cheung Shue Tan, Tai Po Road – Tai Po Kau, Tai Po (the “House”) which is fenced off by surrounding wall of 1.7 metres tall.

3.  At about 10 pm on 16 February 2012, PW1 went to bed leaving her handbag containing some cash unattended on the ground floor of the House.

4.  When PW1 woke up in the morning the next day, she found the money in her handbag missing. A report was made to the police.

5.  At about 8:50 pm on 17 February 2012, PC 8811 intercepted the defendant for enquiry. The defendant admitted having burgled the House out of greed.

6.  Under caution, the defendant said that PW1’s daughter was his girlfriend. He admitted having used a wooden ladder to climb on the roof of the adjacent building and then climbed to the rooftop of the House. He knew that the lock of the door at the rooftop was malfunctioned thus he entered the House via that door. He stole $3,800 from PW1’s handbag. He then left the House via the glass door on the ground floor.

The defendant’s previous conviction record and antecedents

7.  The defendant has three previous convictions of theft. In March 2012, a rehabilitation centre order was imposed on him as a result of his conviction of theft in FLCC 2037/2011.

8.  The defendant was born in the Mainland in May 1994. He is now 18 years old. He immigrated to Hong Kong in 2003 and used to live with his parents and younger brother in Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po. He has received education up to Form 3 level in Hong Kong. Between July and October 2010, he was working as a mechanic trainee, a bakery trainee and a waiter. He has been unemployed since October 2010.

Mitigation

9.  In mitigation, the defendant’s representative asked this court for leniency.

Pre-sentencing reports

10.  The usual starting point for simple domestic premises burglary in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors is 3 years’ imprisonment. However, in light of the fact that the defendant is now 18 years old and by virtue of section 109A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, I called for various pre-sentencing reports. These pre-sentencing reports are now available. Amongst other matters, it is stated in the Report on Suitability for Detention Centre/Rehabilitation Centre/Training Centre in respect of Remand Case referred to the Young Offender Assessment Panel that:

“According to his Supervising Officer Mr MAK Chi-shing of Lai Chi Rehabilitation Centre, [the] defendant managed to behave himself throughout his training and incurred no disciplinary report in the Rehabilitation Centre. His overall performance was considered to be satisfactory. His mother had made regular visits to him and showed support towards his reformation. Apart from those, he showed sense of remorse for his misdeed and determination to turn a new leaf. On the whole, his attitude and performance during his supervision period was satisfactory…

…

The Medical Officer has confirmed that [the] defendant is medically unfit for detention in a Detention Centre because of [his] motor disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder problem. I therefore consider him unsuitable for detention in a Detention Centre. He is mentally and physically [fit] for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre or a Training Centre. From the information available and after a general assessment of his behavior and attitude while undergoing training, I consider him more suitable for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre.”

11.  It is also stated in the Young Offender Assessment Panel Report that:

“Chun-tong was a willful and daring youngster with thievish habits in the past few years. Despite probation supervision service, he kept on his dissipated life and continued to commit similar offences repeatedly without considering its serious legal consequences. Taking into consideration his little insight into his problems and weak family support, the Panel is of the opinion that a period of strict disciplinary training with shocking impact is an appropriate measure to prevent him from further degeneration and help him build up a law-abiding life. As he is medically unfit for Detention Centre programme, the Rehabilitation Centre programme, as the second best option, is recommended in this case.”

Sentence

12.  As the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and in light of the recommendation by the Young Offender Assessment Panel, I am prepared to follow the recommendation and impose a Rehabilitation Centre Order on the defendant. I hope that after the defendant has spent his time in the Rehabilitation Centre, he will turn over a new leaf and become a useful member of the community.