HKSAR v. MA TIM CHOI

DCCC 932/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 932 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  On the evening of 2 September 2015, the defendant was seen by police officers climbing up a tree and entering a workshop in Lung Yeuk Tau, Fanling.  The workshop was a non‑domestic premises.

3.  The police waited for the defendant to come out of the workshop.  An hour or so later, he left the workshop via a gate, having cut the lock to the gate to leave.  He was pushing a trolley with a barrel on it.  In the barrel he had taken from the premises valves, electric wires, some piping and some canvas.

4.  The police also found in his waist bag coins totalling just over $350.

5.  The victim of the warehouse estimated the value of the items stolen to be about $2,000.

6.  As soon as the defendant was stopped, he admitted burglary to the police.  He showed the police where he had stolen certain items from.  The prosecution has supplied me with photographs of stolen items, the workshop and the surrounding area.

7.  The defendant told the police that he was forced to commit such offences because he had a tough life, meaning he was in financial difficulty.  He co‑operated fully with the police.

8.  The defendant is 49 years old and single.  His mother is in her 80s and living in a nursing home.  He is one of eight children, but has no real contact with his siblings.

9.  The defendant has many previous convictions and has appeared in court 18 times.  However, he did not begin a life of crime until 2007, when he was over 40 years old.  Until he was 40 he was law-abiding and supported himself, but he could not find jobs that paid him well enough to keep his head above water.  He found that his money was not going far enough, and he had to steal to help him out.  He is not a drug addict who needed money, but a person who needed to steal to keep himself going.

10.  He does have three previous burglary convictions. In 2010 and 2014 he was dealt with in the District Court; in 2011 he was dealt with in the Fanling Magistracy.  In fact, it was I who sentenced the defendant in his 2010 District Court case, and I heard in 2010 similar mitigation or facts that were quite similar.

11.  The best mitigation today is the defendant’s plea of guilty.

12.  Normally, for a burglary of a non-domestic premises, a starting point of 2 years and 6 months is considered appropriate where there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.  It has been said time and time again that a repeat offender, a recidivist, can expect that fact to be considered an aggravating factor, and in this case, the time has almost come where it can be said the defendant is a recidivist and his sentence should be enhanced from the normal starting point.

13.  However, in this case, considering the defendant’s criminality and background, as well as the facts, I will still find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months appropriate.

14.  Defendant, please stand up.  You have pleaded guilty, and you are entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 10 months.

15.  After that is applied, for this offence you are sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.