HKSAR v. NG MING

DCCC98/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2009

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

 ----------------------

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of burglary committed on 23 December last year when he stole some electric wires from a storeroom at a construction project in Sham Shui Po.

2.  The defendant was employed at that time as a security guard at the construction site in question, and he was patrolling around the premises in the course of his duties when he noticed that the door of the storeroom where construction tools and materials were stored was slightly opened.  He pushed the door open, went inside, saw that there were a fair quantity of wires being stored there and he succumbed to the temptation which was presented to him and he stole the wires in question – I accept it was only part of the wires stored - and took them back to his guard station.  He subsequently sold the wires for $225.

3.  The owner of the wires, Mr Pang Pak-kwan, who was a subcontractor working on the construction site, reported the matter.  The police investigated and the CCTV recording which was in operation at the time showed the defendant stealing the wires in question.  He was arrested and admitted the offence. 

4.  The defendant is 61 years of age and he has a poor record of 52 previous convictions on six court appearances.  29 of his previous convictions are dishonesty-related.  I note that a lot of it dates from many years ago, and the last time the defendant committed an offence was in 1990, some 18-odd years ago. As is almost invariably the case, the defendant submits that he stole the money because he was in need at that time.  In this particular case, the need was to pay for an operation which his daughter was due to undergo on the mainland.  The defendant raised the capital necessary to fund the operation by mortgaging his property and he was paying off the mortgage by instalments of just over $4,000 a month.  He was in straitened financial circumstances at that time and was several months in arrears on his mortgage instalments.

5.  I accept that the defendant had financial difficulties at that time but almost every person who is caught stealing has the same story and it cannot be accepted as being mitigating.  People need money all the time for different purposes and they simply have to find lawful ways of finding the money that they need, which the vast majority of people do.

6.  The stolen wires were worth approximately $2,240 according to the Agreed Facts.  The defendant is willing to pay restitution to the owner and willing for his bail money of $2,000 to be used for that purpose.  That is certainly a mitigating feature. 

7.  The well-established starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment after trial.  I do adopt a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment, and in view of his plea of guilty at the first opportunity and his co-operation with the authorities, he is entitled to the normal one-third discount which reduces the starting point to 20 months’ imprisonment. 

8.  I order the defendant to pay compensation to the owner of the stolen wires, PW1, Pang Pak-kwan, in the sum of $2,000 and I order that his bail money, which he has agreed can be used, be paid in satisfaction of that sum.

9.  In all the circumstances of this matter, including the fact that the defendant has made restitution to the owner, I discount the sentence by a further 4 months and sentence the defendant to 16 months’ imprisonment.