HKSAR v. MAN SAU HONG

DCCC 942/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 942 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  You have admitted that on 3 August 2013 you entered as a trespasser part of a building known as the Tin Dao Publishing House Limited on the 14th Floor of Taurus Building, Granville Road in Tsim Sha Tsui, and stole a bag and a tablet computer.

3.  On that day at about 9.39 am, police officers in plain clothes were on an anti-burglary operation around Taurus Building.  At that time they saw you entering that building.  They then saw you leave that building at 9.52 am.  Having walked for a short while, you stopped nearby and took out from a bag in your rucksack a computer notepad.  As the officers observed you looking at the notepad in a bizarre manner, they intercepted you.

4.  You then later admitted that you had burgled the premises.  CCTV footage of the building captured you entering and leaving the building at 9.42 am and 9.55 am respectively.  A cleaning lady identified you as the person she met on the 14th floor at about 9.55 am.  The publishing house’s manageress confirmed she had locked up the bookshop at 8 pm the previous evening. When she returned the next day, she found that her computer notepad which was contained in a red flannel bag was missing from her unlocked drawer under the cash register of the bookshop.  She identified the computer that was found in your possession as hers.  She also confirmed that someone had tampered with the lock of the door of the shop.  At the time of your arrest a screwdriver was found inside your shoulder bag.

5.  Mr Raymond Ng has made full and thorough mitigation on your behalf before me today.  You are aged 52. On the 10 previous occasions you have been appeared at court, you have racked up 26 previous convictions.  Of those 26 convictions, 24 are for offences related to dishonesty.  20 of those are for burglary or attempted burglary.

6.  Mr Ng has referred me to the principles in sentencing for burglary and has properly stated that the appropriate starting point for burglary of commercial premises is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.  Mr Ng has stated that the reason why you committed this offence was because after your service and time in prison, you found it difficult to obtain a job, and as your daughter also had incurred debts to finance companies, you were looking for money to repay those debts.  Your wife passed away in 2006 and you are now living with your girlfriend.  Quite properly, Mr Ng has stated that the strongest mitigating factor is your plea of guilty.

7.  I have taken into regard the contents that you state in your letter addressed to me, and I accept and I do agree that you have co-operated with the police from the very beginning and admitted your guilt.

8.  Defendant, your first offence of burglary was now some 20‑odd years ago.  Since then you have been continuously committing the same or similar offence and have been serving almost the majority of your time since then in prison.  You can be called a professional burglar.  You entered this building and went directly to the 14th floor.  You used the screwdriver in your possession to enter the premises and steal this laptop within something a time of about 13 minutes.  This was planned and you had targeted these premises.

9.  Your last conviction was in May 2012, to which you were sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for the same offence of burglary. With regard to that case, I have seen the decision by the court, and that was also a non-domestic premises, a commercial premises, of which Mr Ng has confirmed that the judge there enhanced the starting point for non-domestic premises.

10.  Defendant, you committed this offence some four months after you were released from prison.  You are, as I mentioned, what I can call a professional burglar.  This was not committed out of momentary greed.

11.  Defendant, the usual starting point, as I am sure you well know, is one of 2½ years for commercial premises.  You have an appalling criminal record.  Previous sentences do not seem to have deterred you, and the public need to be protected from people like yourself.  In those circumstances, that starting point should be enhanced, as your appalling criminal record is an aggravating factor, and I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

12.  You have pleaded guilty, and I give you full credit for your plea of guilty, and that term shall be reduced to one of 2 years’ imprisonment, or 24 months, which you shall so serve.