HKSAR v. YAM MING LAI, PINK

DCCC 738/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 738 OF 2008

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of burglary of a meter room, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict delivered on the 10th February 2009.  In summary on the 10th July 2008 a security guard of the MPM, Far East Mongkok Building saw the defendant leaving the building by the first floor rear staircase, carrying a paper shopping bag inside which was one lock with two keys, one roll of adhesive tape, two spot light sockets, two walkie-talkies, two walkie-talkie chargers, one cutter and two light bulbs, valued at approximately $1000.  The items were kept in a Meter Room on the first floor of the building, inside which room the security guard had a few minutes earlier seen the defendant sitting.

3.  The report of Dr Wong (exhibit D1) states that the defendant has a longstanding history of polysubstance abuse since a teenager and diagnosed as having drug induced psychosis since 2001.  The criminal record also reveals the defendant having a number of convictions for possession of part 1 poisons and dangerous drugs. Before passing sentence I therefore called for two psychiatric reports and a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Report. 

4.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is two years and six months imprisonment (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215). 

5.  As I indicated at the last hearing I am satisfied taking into account the nature and circumstances of the burglary and that the defendant suffers from mental illness I can depart from the guideline sentence.

6.  What is clear from the reports is that the root cause of the defendant’s offending is her drug problem.  The defendant is presently not in need of inpatient treatment by way of a hospital order.  She is however found to be drug dependant and considered suitable for treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The defendant does not wish to go to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

7.  The defendant was last sentenced to the DATC in August 2007 for five offences of shoplifting and two offences of possession of part 1 poison.  She was discharged in January 2008.  Unfortunately the defendant soon relapsed to taking Zopiclone.  I note the defendant is subject to recall to the DATC, whatever sentence this court imposes.

8.  I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Chan on behalf of the defendant, including that the defendant has spent over six months in custody pending trial.  I note from the defendant’s letter submitted today she shows some remorse and says she will never offend again.

9.  I am satisfied in passing sentence I should look at that which is in the best interests of the rehabilitation of the defendant.  Clearly treatment of her drug addiction is paramount.  Although the defendant has recently been to the DATC and relapsed to taking drugs after her discharge I am satisfied a further period of treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is in the best interests of the defendant’s rehabilitation.  The defendant is sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  Conviction is recorded.

10.  The defendant is in breach of a suspended sentence imposed in January 2007.  As the defendant is sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre I do not activate that suspended sentence, which has now expired.