HKSAR v. LAM CHOR YUEN

DCCC 863/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 863 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to the Theft Ordinance.

2.   On 17 September 2015, the defendant entered a residential building in Sham Shui Po.  From the lobby of that residential building, the defendant stole one computer monitor.

3.   The value of that monitor was $900.  That monitor was installed in the lobby, and the security guard, on the morning of 18 September, realised that it was missing.  From CCTV footage of the building, the defendant is seen following a resident in at about 8 pm the night before.  He managed to dismantle the monitor and leave the building within minutes. 

4.   The value of the monitor, as I have said, was $900, and compensation has been paid today to the victim.

5.   The defendant is not a man with a clear record.  He has 27 criminal convictions obtained over 20 court appearances, the first being when he was only 12 years old.  He has two previous burglary convictions and 15 that are related to offences of dishonesty.

6.   The defendant has a drug addiction history.  He was sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre in 1998 and 2014.  In fact, he must have been recalled to DATC, because he was last released in April this year.

7.   I have heard everything that can be said on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.  He is 39 years old, single, and left school after Form 3.  His mother and his sister are in court today to show support for him.  In fact, I have five letters of mitigation, one from the defendant and the other four from individual family members.  All ask for leniency on the defendant’s behalf.  The defendant declares in his letter an intention to stay away from crime and prison.  To do that, he must stay away from drugs as well.  He feels guilty that he continually disappoints his mother, and would like to, in the future, support her.  I am sure she hopes that he can keep this promise.  His parents are getting older and I am sure would like to see the defendant lead a law-abiding life.

8.   For a burglary of a non-domestic premises there is a tariff of a 2½‑year starting point if there are no mitigating or aggravating factors.  I will take the lobby area, despite it being a residential building, as a non-domestic premises that has been burgled. Burglaries of domestic premises attract a higher starting point.

9.   In this case I have not heard of any particular mitigating or aggravating factors I will take into account.

10.   Defendant, please stand up.  I will take the normal tariff of 2 years and 6 months as a starting point.  You pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third.

11.   After that discount is applied, what remains is a sentence of 1 year and 8 months.

12.   I intend to reduce that by a further 2 months to reflect compensation paid to the victim.

13.   Therefore, for this offence, you are sentenced to 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand the sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.