|
DCCC 560/2025
[2025] HKDC 1599
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 560 OF 2025
________________________
________________________
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge Raymond Wong in Court |
| Present: |
Mr Hsu Ming Hon, Albert, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Ho H Y Vanessa, instructed by Au Yeung, Cheng, Ho & Tin, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offences: |
[1] & [2] Burglary（入屋犯法罪） |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
Charge
1. The defendant was charged with 2 counts of burglary.
Plea
2. The defendant pleaded guilty to both, admitted the facts and was convicted.
Summary of facts
3. The said location was a Shopping Centre. The opening hours were between 10 am and 11 pm every day. Visitors were not permitted to stay in the Centre outside its opening hours.
Charge 1
4. On the material day at midnight, a tenant made a complaint to the security that a male was inside the Centre.
5. The CCTV footage revealed that a male wearing a face mask entered the Centre via the fire exit on the 2nd floor, wandered around and eventually left.
Charge 2
6. On the following day at midnight, the fire alarm was activated.
7. The CCTV footage revealed that the same male entered the Centre via the fire exit on the 2nd floor, wandered around and eventually left.
Arrest
8. 6 days later, the defendant was intercepted in the street. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was the male in the said CCTV footage. He were to the Centre to see if he could take away any valuable items but did not take anything in the end.
Background of the Defendant
9. The defendant, aged 37, was single and unemployed.
10. The defendant had 14 previous convictions with 1 similar.
11. The defence by relying on the case HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000,submitted the present case being one of opportunistic burglary and asked for a lower starting point.
Consideration
12. In sentencing, I have considered the following points:-
(1) The facts of the case involving 2 counts of non-domestic
burglary.
(2) The mitigation put forward.
(3) Defendant having 14 previous with 1 similar.
13. For non-domestic burglary, there has been tariff being 2 1/2 years’ imprisonment.
14. As mitigated, I noted the case of HKSAR v Sim Wa Wing. I accepted the present facts fell within the category of opportunistic burglary.
Starting Point
15. I adopted a bit lower starting point of 2 years and 3 months.
Sentence
16. On guilty plea with 1/3 discount,
Charge (1): 18 months imprisonment
Charge (2): 18 months imprisonment
Totality
17. Having considered the totality principle, I ordered that 4 months of Charge (2) be served consecutively to Charge (1).
18. Altogether, the defendant was sentenced to 18 months plus 4 months, being 22 months’ imprisonment.
|
( Raymond Wong ) |
|
Deputy District Judge |
|