|
DCCC942/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 942 OF 2010
----------------------
----------------------
|
Date:
|
24 September 2010 at 11.37 am
|
|
Present:
|
Mr Winston Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Chan Ming-fai, of Rowland Chow, Chan & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
|
-----------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
-----------------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. The premises concerned being the office at the construction site on Ting Kok Road in Tai Po.
2. At about 5.40 on 20 July, the victim in this case, Mr Ho, was working in the office on the construction site when he heard some noise from behind him. At the time he was concentrating on his work and when he looked around a few moments later, he noticed that his notebook computer was missing from his office desk.
3. The defendant had been observed by another employee on the site carrying something underneath his upper garment with his left hand. The victim then appeared and enquired of workers on the site about his missing notebook computer. A few minutes later, the defendant was observed carrying a black rucksack in the vicinity and inside the rucksack the notebook computer was recovered. It was worth $700 and he admitted stealing it out of momentary greed.
4. The defendant has an appalling record. He has 21 previous convictions, 2 of which with burglary. He had been sentenced to prison previously for burglary for 20 months in 2003 and 16 months in 2007. He was last sent to prison in March of this year for 4 months for possession of dangerous drugs. He was released in April this year.
5. I was told in mitigation that the defendant is 36 years of age and he lives with his grandmother who is now 80, very ill, and his father who is aged 65. The defendant was unemployed at the time of the offence. He worked previously as a decoration worker earning $4,500 per month.
6. Counsel for the defendant submits that this was not an opportunistic burglary. I note that he had to go into the building site to locate the office. It is right that no force was used, no weapon was used and the property was recovered. The only mitigation in this case is the guilty plea entered by the defendant.
7. The starting point for an offence of this kind is 2½ years' imprisonment. I see no reason to depart from that sentencing tariff today.
8. The defendant is entitled to a reduction in that sentence to reflect his guilty plea, he will therefore be sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.
|