HKSAR v. SO WAI MAN

DCCC 741/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 741 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary.

2.  He has accepted the facts and I have convicted him.

3.  Those facts showed that the burglary occurred at a location called ‘Cover’ which is a hair stylist salon in Lockhart Street in Causeway bay.  That premises was locked up on the evening of 30 January 2015 at about 9.30 pm and the next morning, that is on 31 January 2015, was found to have been burgled.  The rear door was unlocked and the ventilation window had been opened and the premises had been ransacked.  Cash and electronic items to a value of $6,500 had been stolen. 

4.  A fingerprint was lifted from a container which had been in a drawer from which cash had been taken.  This was the left middle finger of the defendant and obviously had been touched by the defendant during the course of the burglary, the clear inference being the defendant was the burglar, which he has admitted by his plea today.

5.  The defendant’s antecedents show that he is 32 years old.  He was unemployed before his arrest and he is single. 

6.  He has an extensive criminal record dating from 1997 when he was first placed on probation for an assault.  Since then he has managed to accumulate 49 convictions in 32 court appearances, 18 of those cases were for dishonesty involving minor, petty theft from the look of it.  The defendant has also been convicted for offences involving the possession of dangerous drugs. 

7.  The defendant has received one previous conviction for burglary on 3 December 2013 when he received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.  Most recently, in March 2015, he was sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The involvement in burglary in 2013 shows what appears to be a worsening of the defendant’s criminality.

8.  In mitigation it is said that in the course of this burglary, no weapon was used.  There was no injury or no damage and the burglary occurred at a time when it could be expected there will be nobody in the premises.  And, of course, the defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to his discount for that.

9.  There is a settled guideline for sentence for burglary of non-domestic premises.  This is a non-domestic premises.  The starting point for a person of clear record will be one of 30 months’ imprisonment, or 2½ years.  The defendant, however, is not a person of clear record, he has a poor record for offences of dishonesty and one previous conviction for the same offence.

10.  In his case, previous sentences have not acted as a deterrent in committing this offence.  So in this case it acts as an aggravating factor.  For that aggravating factor, I will add a further 3 months’ imprisonment to the starting point of 30 months.  That leads to a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  The defendant is entitled to a one-third discount from that, which will lead to a sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for this offence.