HKSAR v. LAU PUN

DCCC 695/2018

[2019] HKDC 37

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 695 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  In this case, the defendant Lau Pun faced one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. He is convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.

2.  The facts revealed that some time in the afternoon of the 11 May 2018, the defendant entered into a two-storey private residential house situated in Fairview Park, Yuen Long.  At the time the occupant of the house was not present.  He gained entrance by prising open a window of the ground floor on the living room.  Once inside, he took away a total of 221 items belonging to the occupant: they include a small amount of cash, jewelleries and computers and other personal belongings.  Their total value added up to $215,000.

3.  He put some of the items into a nylon bag and a rucksack, some he kept on his person.

4.  He was seen by a neighbour of the victim while he was climbing a one-metre wall outside of the house when he was leaving the house.  He then alerted the security guards working at the complex.  Eventually the defendant was intercepted in a shuttle bus of Fairview Park.

5.  This is a case involving burglary of a domestic premises. According to the sentencing authorities, the starting point for such offences is 3 years’ imprisonment.

6.  Mr Poon of the prosecution helpfully provided a copy of the authority, namely, Attorney-General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215.  The defence took no issue on the guideline authority.  I see no reason to depart from it.

7.  The defendant is aged 59.  On four occasions he had been brought to court and had been convicted of six offences.  In 1985 he was convicted of one count of attempted burglary for which he was fined.

8.  There is no valid mitigating factor apart from the fact that he pleaded guilty, and the defence saw fit not to make any further submissions on mitigation.

9.  I therefore order that the 3-year imprisonment, reduced to 2 years, by reason of his plea.

10.  I noted that in August 2016 he was convicted of two offences, namely shoplifting and possession of Part I poison, for which he was sentenced respectively to a term of imprisonment of 4 weeks, suspended for a total of 36 months to run concurrently.  By committing the present offence, the defendant had been in breach of this suspended sentence order.

11.  I see no reason why it should not be activated but, after considering the totality principle, I see no reason why I should order this activated suspended sentence to run concurrent to the existing one.

12.  I therefore order the 4 weeks to run consecutive to the sentence that has already been ordered.

13.  In all, the defendant is to serve a term of imprisonment of 24 months and 4 weeks.