HKSAR v. TSANG LEUNG KWAN

DCCC558/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 558 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of a charge of Attempted burglary.

2.  PW1 saw the defendant squat down in front of a wine shop and used a cutter to cut the padlock which was attached to the shutter.  PW1 was in plain clothes at the material time.  The defendant turned around and saw PW1.  He put the cutter back into the computer bag and moved a bag of rubbish back to cover the computer bag. 

3.  The defendant was stopped and arrested by PW1 for an offence of attempted burglary.  The defendant remained silent under caution. 

Record

4.  The defendant has 14 previous records, seven related to burglary offences.  Two were in 1983 and five were between 2000 to 2010.  One conviction of conspiracy to rob, two convictions for going equipped for stealing and three convictions of handling stolen goods. 

Mitigation

5.  I am told he is married with three children all in their teenage and are living in the Mainland.  He received primary education in the Mainland and he worked as a clerk and tailor before.

Sentence

6.  This is a case of shop burglary.  PW1 intercepted the defendant before the defendant continued with his cutting into the padlock of the shop and before he entered the shop to steal. This is a wine shop sitting between Dundas Street and Portland Street.  The owner told the police that the shop had a wine stock worth $300,000. 

7.  The defence submitted that it was a non-domestic premises burglary and the usual starting point is one of 2½ years.  Also the shop owner did not suffer any loss. However there is an aggravating factor in this case.  The defendant has 14 convictions, seven convictions related to burglary.  He was sentenced to 2 years each time in 2008 and 2010 for an offence of burglary.  He was discharged in January 2011 and re-offended in April 2011, only a lapse of three months before he re-offended again for the same offence.  Clearly he is a professional burglar and a persistent offender and that the previous sentence did not deter him from re-offending again. 

8.  Against this background, it is in the public interest that I should impose a longer sentence to act as a deterrent sentence.  I impose a further six months to the usual starting point of 2½ years. It comes to 3 years.  The defendant is sentenced to 3 years for the offence of attempted burglary.