PROMTHONG ARNON also known as LAU CHUN-MAN and ARNON PROMTHONG

DCCC 1078/2017

[2018] HKDC 972

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1078 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges including burglary and attempted burglary, contrary to Section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and Section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  For Charge 1, in the midday between 11 and 12 on 30 August 2017, through a CCTV camera, defendant was seen entering the premises on 4th floor, No 325 Reclamation Street, Mong Kok.  There were 4 rooms, A to D, inside the premises. 

3.  Defendant had been wandering outside Room C and then showed up again, wearing a pair of gloves and tampering the door lock, attempted to open the door but in vain. Defendant did not know any occupier in that premises, and Room C was occupied whereby the resident left after securing the room door.  But the main door of the premises was just having a malfunctioning door lock and it remained closed at the material time.

4.  Upon arrest and caution, defendant said he went there trying to visit a friend.  In video-recorded interview, he repeated the same and said he stayed for some minutes and then discovered his friend had moved out.

5.  For Charge 2, about 4 pm on the 5 September 2017, defendant was seen half-naked, standing on the scaffolding outside the middle window of the living room of Flat B3, 12th floor, Wah May Building, Portland Street, Mong Kok.  The resident heard some sounds and found the defendant and that the window grill had fallen onto the floor inside the living room.

6.  Defendant excused and pretended to be just a construction worker, but when asked to fix it, defendant fled from the scene.  Defendant also did not know any occupier of premises.

7.  Upon arrest and caution, defendant said while waiting for his friend at the rooftop, his shirt fell off to the scaffolding and he therefore went down and accidentally broke the said window.

8.  The defendant now admits having entered and attempted to enter the above 2 premises with intent to steal therein. 

9.  Defendant, age 30, a Thai national.  He had 11 previous criminal records of which 2 were similar in 2011 and 2013 where he had been sentenced to 18 months' and 40 months' imprisonments respectively.

10.  Ms Chow, in mitigation stated thoroughly the special background of the defendant, whom had been deserted in Thailand by his father, and then he came to Hong Kong at a very young age when his mother married a Hong Kong people.  And for some very special immigration arrangement, defendant just cannot acquire the status of the permanent residence in Hong Kong.  Defendant now becomes a Form 8 recognisance holder and it is believed that he would be deported to Thailand after serving imprisonment. 

11.  Ms Chow further stated that due to the defendant’s very limited education for just 2 years’ primary schooling, he could hardly find a proper job and stable income and that explains why he had committed some other offences in the past.  But now, defendant is more than willing to turn a new leaf and he had apparently secured a job of tour guide in Bangkok where he can work when back to Thailand.

12.  Defendant also submitted a mitigation letter stating that he regretted so much for what he had done and asked for leniency.  Ms Chow, lastly submitted in relation to both offences, defendant was just an opportunistic offender taking chances to see if he can get anything out. 

13.  Burglary is a serious offence.  The Court of Appeal, in quite some cases, already stated that involving domestic premises, the starting of 3 years' imprisonment should be adopted.  Not to mention the defendant had 2 previous similar convictions and that for a normal Form 8 recognisance holder, the court can also raise the starting point.  However, having heard the very detailed mitigation by Ms Chow, I accept the defendant was not that type of holder who came to Hong Kong just for committing offences. 

14.  Considering all the facts and mitigations, I am prepared to still adopt the usual starting point of 3 years' imprisonment for both offences.  Reducing to 2 years upon guilty plea by the defendant of both offences.

15.  And on totality, I consider that a total of 32 months' imprisonment be appropriate.  So,

Charge 1: 2 years' imprisonment;

Charge 2: 2 years' imprisonment, but only 8 months be made consecutive to Charge1.

16.  For both charges, the sentence will be 2 years and 8 months.