|
DCCC 1052/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1052 OF 2012
____________
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
CHAN Hing-nam |
|
| ____________ |
| Before: |
H.H. Judge G. Lam |
| Present: |
Ms. Irene POON, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. Albert SZETO of M/s Chiu, Szeto & Cheng, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant. |
| Offences: |
(1) & (2) Burglary（入屋犯法） |
____________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
____________________________
The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Burglary". The burgled premises are a hair salon and a beauty parlour.
Summary of Facts
Charge 1
2. Mr. AU YEUNG (PW1) is the owner of a hair salon situated at 1/F, No.60 Bute Street, Mongkok (Shop A). He left his shop at midnight on 19 May 2012. He returned at 10:00 am the same day and discovered his shop having been burgled. A notebook computer and cash in the sum of about $600 were stolen from the cashier counter. The Police was alerted.
3. The Police lifted 4 fingerprints from the cashier counter and the wooden cabinet underneath it. Two of the fingerprints, which were found on the door of the wooden cabinet, match with the defendant's right thumb and right palm.
Charge 2
4. Madam LEUNG (PW2) was the manager of a beauty parlour situated at 1st to 4th Floors, Grand View Commercial Centre, Nos.29-31 Sugar Street, Causeway Bay (Shop B). About 10:30 pm on 9 August 2012, the staff of Shop B left the shop. PW2 returned about 10:00 am the following day and discovered the shop having been burgled. A locked drawer at the 3rd Floor reception counter was found prized open. Cash in the sum of about $14,000 were stolen from that drawer. The Police was alerted.
5. The Police lifted 2 fingerprints from the desk in the manager room and the water tap in the 3rd Floor toilet. The fingerprint found on the water tap matches with the defendant's right forefinger.
The Defendant's Admissions
6. After arrest and under caution, the defendant admitted that in respect of Charge 1, he climbed into Shop A through a window. He stole a notebook computer and $600 cash from Shop A. He later sold the notebook computer at $400 and spent all the money. In respect of Charge 2, he climbed into Shop B through a window. He found a pair of scissors at the reception counter and used it to prize open the drawer. He spent all the money stolen.
Mitigation & Sentence
7. The defendant is now 50. He has 10 conviction records involving 19 offences of Burglary or Attempted Burglary. He is married and has 2 twin boys aged 11 attending primary school in Hong Kong. His wife is a home-maker and is present in court today. The defendant was a decoration worker earning $15,000 per month.
8. Defence lawyer Mr. SZETO submitted that the defendant has behaved well in the past 20 years since his last conviction in 1991. He made a mistake this time because he was in financial difficulty. He had to pay for his credit card loans as well as the expenses for his children. Mr. SZETO further submitted that in the present case, no weapons were used and no one was present at the respective locations when the offences took place. In other words, no person was frightened.
9. Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime. Making the ends meet is certainly not an excuse. In modern Hong Kong, there is sufficient social welfare protection for the poor and the weak to meet their basic needs.
10. I will adopt the normal starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment for non-domestic burglary. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 20 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. Hence, the sentence I impose is 20 months' imprisonment for each charge.
11. Although the defendant's last and similar conviction took place in 1991, he is no doubt a repeated offender for the purpose of this case. I have displayed my leniency by not increasing the starting point.
12. Charges 1 and 2 are 3 months apart and the locations are different. Both offences are separate and distinct. Having considered the totality principle, I order 12 months in the sentence for Charge 2 to run consecutive to Charge 1; thus, arriving at a total prison term of 32 months for both charges.
|