HKSAR v. LAU WING YU

DCCC 373/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 373 OF 2012

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 7 charges of "Burglary". The burgled premises are shops and restaurants. The Prosecution applied to leave Charges 2, 3, 6 and 7 in the court file. I granted the application.

Summary of Facts

2. The modus operandi in all 7 charges is almost identical.  After the burgled premises were closed for business at night, the defendant entered into those places and stole therefrom.

3. About 1:50 am on 27 February 2012, in the course of committing Charge 11, the defendant was caught inside the restaurant wearing a face mask, a pair of gloves and holding a crowbar.  The safe in the restaurant was damaged badly.  Cash and some tools were scattered on the floor.  A knife was placed on a table.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was there to burgle because he was in need of money for he had been unemployed for half a year. 

4. The Police later searched the defendant's home and found cash in the sum of $49,688 and 3 safes.  The defendant admitted under caution that the 3 safes were stolen as a result of Charges 5, 8 and 10.  He also admitted that in Charge 10, he had stolen about $70,000 and about $40,000 were still in the respective safe.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted having committed Charges 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Mitigation & Sentence

5. The defendant is now 31 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. NG informed me that the defendant has been unemployed since April 2011. He was previously a construction worker. In March 2011, he injured both hands in an industrial accident. He was dismissed as a result. He has now recovered, but can no longer lift heavy objects.

6. Mr. NG submitted that the defendant needs to maintain his aged parents and his younger brother, who is still in school. He used up all his savings in September 2011. He foolishly committed the first burglary, which led to the subsequent offences. A letter from the defendant's parents was placed before me; its contents are duly noted. Mr. NG stressed that the defendant acted alone in all burglaries.

7. 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.

8. In terms of the nature and monetary value of the stolen properties, I can see a clear progressive pattern. It is most unfortunate that the defendant was successful all along until Charge 11. I believe his previous success strengthened his confidence and thus caused him getting into deeper trouble.

9. From all 7 charges, cash in a total sum of $128,350 was involved, out of which a total sum of about $53,000 in Charges 8 and 10 was recovered, whereas no cash was lost in Charge 11. The defendant has also stolen other properties including electric wires, bottles of red wine and some frozen seafood.

10. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. Based on the nature and value of the stolen items, the mode of stealing and the defendant being a serial burglar (albeit a fresh offender), I consider the appropriate global starting point for all 7 charges to be 6 years' imprisonment.

11. For each charge, I adopt a starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment. 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 for each charge is 20 months' imprisonment.

12. Bearing in mind the global starting point of 6 years as well as the totality principle, I make the following order :-

(i) Charges 1, 4 and 5 to run concurrently;

(ii) Charges 8 and 10 to run concurrently but consecutive to all other charges; and

(iii) Charges 9 and 11 to run concurrently; 8 months consecutive to all other charges.

Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 48 months