HKSAR v. PUN DAG KEES

DCCC873/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 873 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.

3.  The facts were as follows.  Lau Wah, PW1, purchased 1st Floor, 22-26 Reclamation Street, Yau Ma Tei, under a relation’s name in 2008.  He partitioned part for storage; it had a full length partition on three sides and was mounted with a locked door leading to the corridor.  The fourth side had a short wall, waist height, facing the street.  There was no grille or window frame at the opening.  On 15 July last at about 10 am, Chan Man-wai, PW2, and Wong Wing-chung, PW3, were working at the rear lane beside the building.  PW3 saw you climb down the water pipes from the storage area and jump onto the ground. 

4.  You were carrying a black bag, which is Exhibit 1, PW2 and PW3 tried to make inquiries of you but you had dropped Exhibit 1 to the ground and fled.  However, they intercepted you and called the police. 

5.  At about 10.09 hours, PC 11885, PW4, arrived and cautioned you.  You admitted entering the storage area, stealing electrical wires and copper pipes which you put into Exhibit 1 and then climbed out along the water pipes.  PW4 arrested and further cautioned you and you admitted climbing into the storage area, stealing electric wires, copper pipes and other items which you had planned to sell.  From Exhibit 1 the police retrieved the various items listed in the brief facts.  These are Exhibits 1 to 11.  They have little value; the total value being $500. 

6.  At a subsequent video record of interview you admit first climbing along the water pipe to the storage area, taking Exhibits 1 to 11 and then leaving by the same route and too that you intended to sell items 1 to 11.  You admitted to six previous convictions, four of which involved dishonesty.  This offence was committed shortly after your release from prison.   

7.  On your behalf Mr Tracy entered mitigation.  He told me that you agreed with the facts contained in the antecedent statement. You are 33 years of age, Hong Kong born and single.   You are poorly educated being illiterate and you speak neither English nor Chinese, nor do you write your native language.  Having been born in Hong Kong you returned to Nepal when you were seven months old and came back to Hong Kong when you were 18 years old.  Both your parents are in Nepal; your father is retired, in fact, a retired soldier. You have three siblings all of which are in the UK and have Army connections. 

8.  Mr Tracy explained the reason for your late plea of guilty and I accept that as being entirely valid.  He told me that on coming to Hong Kong that you had worked in construction and latterly this was on a casual basis.  The present offence arose because on your release for prison you wished to return to Nepal and still intend to do so.  You had lost your passport and needed money to pay for a new one.  I understand that on the day of the offence you had been drinking whiskey with your friends.

9.  Mr Tracy submitted that the burglary was a minor one; there was no breaking and entering; it involved a commercial premises; the value of the goods was low and you were not armed. He asked me for leniency on your behalf.

10.  I turn now to the sentence.  I do have some sympathy for your situation; you are an unfortunate victim of an inadequate education; a man in an alien society unable to speak the two main languages that are used in that society.  You are far from family support and help.  From what I have heard your plan to return to Nepal is the right one. 

11.  Your criminal record is undistinguished.  An aggravating feature of this is that you committed the burglary shortly after your release from a prison sentence.  I do accept that burglary itself was minor in nature.  It involved no breaking and entering; the goods taken were of little value and fully recovered and these were obviously commercial premises. I also note that on arrest you were entirely cooperative with the police.

12.  Taking all matters into account I can see no reason to depart from the normal tariff, therefore I take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment reduced to 20 months.  You will go to prison for 20 months.