HKSAR v. CHU KWOK BOR

DCCC 45/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 45 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. You admitted the Brief Facts and I convicted you.

2. What happened is this.  PW1, a resident of a flat at No. 219-221, Sai Yee Street, Mongkok which is the building where he resided, at about 12.15 pm on 31 October of last, he looked from his window to the patio of the building and saw you carrying a blue knapsack. 

3. He knew you were not a resident of that building.  He observed you for two minutes.  You peeped into adjacent units to the patio and appeared to look for things on the patio.  PW1 then phoned PW2, another resident, and informed him of what he had seen and asked him to go to the patio.  PW1 then called the police.

4. PW2 found the rear door of the building to be open.  He looked up the staircase and saw you standing on the stairway platform between the 1st and ground floors.  At that time, you were holding copper pipes.  PW2 asked you why you were there, and you replied that you were seeing if there was anything you could pick up.  When ordered, you came down to the ground floor.  PW1 arrived at this time.

5. At 12.30 pm, PC58029, PW3, arrived and located the three of you together.  He searched your knapsack and found four copper pipes therein.  You said you ascended through the rear door to the patio, pulled open a wire netting and took four copper pipes.  You intended to sell them.

6. PW3 arrested and cautioned you for theft, and you replied, “Ah Sir, give me a chance.  I stole the copper pipes to sell them because I have no money for food.”

7. PW3 seized the four copper pipes and the knapsack. 

8. You are a man with an appalling criminal record.  You have 19 previous convictions, 7 of which are similar.  Your last conviction was in 2011.

9. Mr Sham on your behalf entered limited mitigation because, in reality, there was little that could be said.  He told me that you are 59, divorced some time ago and working casually as a docker.  Because of your health, you are only able to perform light duties and these are hard to come by.  You find it more and more difficult to obtain work and in fact you are in receipt of $3,000 by way of public assistance.  You pay $1,300 per month for your room.  You find it hard to make ends meet.  You intended to pick up the pipes to buy food. 

10. On your behalf, Mr Sham emphasised your plea of guilty, your immediate co-operation with the police and indeed I would say with the prosecution witnesses, and that the stolen pipes were of very low value.  He asked me to consider on your behalf fining you.

11. I turn now to the sentence.  I have noted and remarked upon your appalling criminal record which spans four decades.  I accept the mitigation advanced on your behalf that the pipes were of small value and you were very co-operative, as I have said, both with the police and with the prosecution witnesses.  I also note that an area like this patio is very vulnerable to theft, and that the indiscriminate removal of pipes can lead to danger, depending if those pipes are in use and connected and what they are in use and connected for.  A person removing them may have no idea what they are for.

12. In all the circumstances, I find that a fine would be wholly inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the offence.  However, I do take into account that your motives were to buy food, not to pay off gambling debts or fuel drug addiction, and the points in mitigation raised.  I therefore take a starting point of 4 and a half months’ imprisonment reduced to 3 months for your plea of guilty.  You will go to prison for 3 months.