HKSAR v. CHAU MAN YING

DCCC773/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 773 of 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant I have just convicted of one burglary charge, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  I will not repeat the facts of the case.  I have dealt with them in full in my reasons for verdict. 

3.  I have now heard mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant.

4.  I have also heard the defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has many, many previous convictions, many relate to dishonesty offences including four similar offences of burglary.  It would appear from the criminal record, the defendant has had a drug addiction problem from several decades ago.  And I have been told that the defendant now has a physical disability, amputation of fingers due to circulation problems which are classic drug addiction problems.   

5.  Defendant is now 56 years old, is unemployed and receiving public assistance.  I have received a letter written for the defendant.  It explains that although he is single, he has an elderly mother reliant on the defendant for day-to-day care.  It also explains why he committed this offence, why he pleaded not guilty and I have taken that into account. 

6.  I have also taken into account the facts of the case.  The defendant should be aware that these premises can be categorized as domestic premises, and a domestic premises burglary would attract a 3-year sentence.  And obviously there would be no discount from that starting point because the defendant has been convicted after trial.

7.  However, looking at the facts of this case, I intend to lower that starting point for other reasons.  Those being that these premises were not occupied and very clearly not occupied when the defendant entered, the whole block is vacant; and looking at the defendant’s address and where all his criminal records emanate from, he has grown up in this district, he would be well familiar, with those buildings in Nam Cheong Street.  I can therefore take it as given that he was being opportunistic that he was looking for some valuables to sell if any and what he did find was not of any high value.  The camera and the mobile phones have no chargers, he was obviously going to take them down to somewhere like Apliu Street and try and sell them.  He would not have made much money from them.

8.  There are no other aggravating factors I can see except for his previous record, but I do not intend to treat his record as a reason to increase the starting point. 

9.  After considering all the circumstances of the case and those reasons I have just set out, I will reduce what should have been a 3-year starting point by a year.  For this offence, you will be sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.