HKSAR v. AU MAN TAI

DCCC893/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant, Au Man-tai, denied one count of burglary but changed his plea to one of guilty in the middle of the trial.

2.  The premises in question are a public swimming pool.  It is a two-storey complex with the male staff changing room on the rooftop.  The changing room has a metal door fitted with locks.  A staff member returned to work one morning and discovered some prising marks on the door of the changing room.  Upon checking the CCTV of the swimming pool, the defendant was seen entering the swimming pool at the ground floor at night time when the pool was closed to the public.  A report was made to the police.

3.  On the next day an officer stopped the defendant in the street for questioning for he was wearing the same shirt as the man appeared in the CCTV. 

4.  Under caution the defendant admitted he had climbed up to the rooftop of the swimming complex and tried to prise open the door of a room with tools he picked up from the lavatory of the swimming pool with intent to steal some PSP games, but he could not open the door to enter.

5.  In mitigation, counsel first of all stressed the young age of the defendant, the fact that nothing was stolen in the course of the burglary and that it was not particularly well planned but rather something in the nature of an opportunistic burglary.

6.  The court was told that the defendant’s mother had passed away, father remarried and the defendant was a dropout- he did not do well at school.  He started abusing drugs due to the bad influence of dubious peers.  He first transgressed the law in 2007.  He was sent to the rehabilitation centre for the offences of theft and common assault; thereafter he came into conflict with the law rather frequently.  For a number of burglaries, he was sent to training centre.  Only one day after the commission of the present offence, he was given a suspended sentence by a court for the offence of criminal intimidation. 

7.  The defendant now only 19 years of age has amassed 9 previous convictions over the past 4 years, 6 of them are either burglary or attempted burglary.  Clearly, the defendant is a repeat offender of this type of offence, i.e. burglary.  Sentences in the past do not seem to have deterred him from committing similar offences.

8.  Burglary is a serious offence.  There are sentencing guidelines for such type of offence.  For non-dwellings it is 2½ years’ imprisonment; for dwellings, it is 3 years.  I would regard the premises in question as non-dwellings.

9.  Having heard all the mitigation put forward on your behalf, apart from your plea albeit a belated one, there is no other mitigation of substance.  For the facts of the present case, I take 2½ years as a starting point.  Looking at your record, obviously you are a repeat offender of this type of offence, and for that matter I increase the starting point to 3 years. And I do not intend to give you the full one-third discount for guilty plea- that is for plea entered at the outset of the proceedings.  I would give you only one-fourth discount.  36 months, take away one-fourth, you are sentenced to 27 months.