HKSAR v. NG TSZ KI

DCCC 712/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 712 OF 2009

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendants plead guilty to one charge of burglary of a shop in Plover Cove Road Market, Tai Po, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  In summary the shop was used for storage.  In the afternoon of the 30th May this year the owner closed but did not lock the roller gate.  In the evening of the 1st June the defendant pulled up the roller gate and stole 3 stainless steel racks, one stainless steel container and two refrigerator doors.  The case was reported to the police the next morning when the owner discovered some of his property was missing.  The defendant was arrested two days later when he confessed to the burglary. 

3.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is two years and six months imprisonment (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).

4.  Mr Ting submits the burglary was opportunistic being more akin to that of a sneak thief and that the defendant was fully cooperative with the police without which cooperation the police would have had no case.  I accept a lower starting point can be taken where the burglary is opportunistic (see HKSAR v SIM Ka-wing CACC 450/2000 as applied in HKSAR v YEUNG Kwok-sang CACC 4/2006).  Having looked at the photographs of the premises I am prepared to accept the burglary was opportunistic and not planned.  Further the prosecution accept the only evidence against the defendant is his confession.  I take these matters into account in determining the starting point.

5.  The defendant is on the other hand properly to be regarded as a persistent offender in offences of dishonesty, having twenty-five convictions for theft since 2006 and having only been released from prison three weeks prior to the commission of the offence.  Previous sentences have clearly had no deterrent effect on the defendant (see HKSAR v CHAN Pui-chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830). 

6.  Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating features I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 2 years imprisonment.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Ting.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment.