HKSAR v. LAM SIU KEUNG

 DCCC982/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 982 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted burglary.

2.  He was caught red-handed attempting to enter and trespass a secondary school in Yuen Long. His attempt was foiled by an alarm bell ringing when he attempted to break into the school’s general office. This was at 3 am on 7 August this year.

3.  A night watchman heard the alarm, discovered the defendant and caught him after a short chase. Police arrived shortly after and the defendant made a full admission under caution.

4.  The police found tools on the defendant which the defendant admitted intending to use in the course of a burglary. He fully co-operated with the police. Luckily, the school ultimately did not suffer any loss.

5.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea today.

6.  I have been informed that the defendant has many criminal records, 19 in total, with 11 being similar to burglary. I note specifically his last 5 previous convictions were all for burglary. I note their dates being the years 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007.

7.  Counsel for the defendant has submitted a written mitigation, I have considered its contents as well as the mitigation, further mitigation put forward today. I have heard of the defendant’s background, his financial hardship and his desperation that led to this offence being committed only weeks after his release from prison for the last burglary offence.

8.  A 2½-year term of imprisonment is normally the starting point for a burglary of a non-domestic premises in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors. However, it is my view that the defendant’s persistent re-offending is an aggravating factor I can and will take into account.

9.  In the authority of HKSAR v Chan Piu Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830, it was said that a starting point may be increased to take into account the aggravating features of persistence and the failure of previous sentences to deter on the one hand and the court’s duty to protect the public on the other. This principle has been approved in subsequent authorities Cheng Chi Shing [2001] 2 HKLRD 75 and Leung Tong and another [2001] 1 HKLRD 526. In short, these authorities approved longer sentences being imposed on persistent offenders.

10.  Defendant, please stand up. Having heard mitigation and considered the facts of this case as well as the fact of an aggravating factor being present, instead of a starting point of 2 years and 6 months, I will take a starting point of 3 years. I again repeat, the increase is to reflect the aggravating feature.

11.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea today. For this offence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.