|
DCCC868/2008
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
----------------------
----------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Sham
Date: 8 April 2009
|
Present:
|
Mr Martyn Richmond, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Choy Wai-bond, Edwin, instructed by Messrs K H Yuen & David Cheung, for the Defendant
|
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
Reasons for Sentence
1. Defendant, Wong Yiu-hung, was convicted after trial of one count of burglary. The property you burgled was a three-storey village house which is situated just right next to where you lived. On the day in question, you climbed from your home to the neighbouring village house. You got inside through the window on the upper floor. Once inside, you removed the things as particularised in the charge and then jumped over the space separating the two houses back to your home with the stolen things.
2. You are not unknown to court. You have a number of previous convictions. To your credit, at least on the record, you have been out of trouble for over the past 10 years. In mitigation, your counsel said the instant case is different from the typical burglary. The village house in question was abandoned for many years, and the things you had taken are not of high value. Your counsel also said that your father left you sometime before this incident. You were unable to make a living yourself, and you were driven by desperation.
3. The court has called for a background report about you, and I detect no sense of remorse on your part. You maintain your innocence. That is your right.
4. For the offence of which you were convicted, there are sentencing guidelines. For dwelling houses, it is 3 years in the absence of aggravation. For non-dwelling, it is 2 and a half years. Your counsel said the house has been abandoned for many years and the matters taken are not of high value. In my view, these do not amount to mitigating factors. That only shows there is not any added aggravation. But it is about the way you got into the village house that may support the plea for a reduction in the sentence.
5. It is not clear from the evidence how you really got into the village house. You said that you got through the window, but whether you broke in by smashing the window or it was open already is not clear. But on the evidence before the court, I am prepared to take the lenient view. That is the view more favourable to you, that is, the window already open or broken. With that in mind, I am prepared to consider this to be a case of opportunistic burglary, and that would be a good reason to depart from the sentencing guideline.
6. Taking into account all the mitigation put forward, I sentence you to a term of 18 months.
| |
Deputy District Judge Sham |
|