HKSAR v. LAM WAN WAH

DCCC236/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 236 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, contrary to section 9, and one offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of each of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you. Briefly the facts are as follows: 

3.  Firstly, in respect of Charge 1, PW1 was one of the owners of Sing Cheong Engineering Construction Limited, which was constructing a ditch at the junction of To Kwa Wan Road and Mok Cheong Street.

4.  On 19 January this year, at about 7.30 pm in the evening, PW1 went to inspect the construction ditch.  He saw you pushing a trolley and approaching it.  You pulled open the plastic fence around the construction ditch and jumped in.  You took an iron plate and an iron bar, which belonged to the construction company, and got out.  PW1 intercepted you, he called the police, you were arrested and then you were bailed.

5.  Charge 2.  On 26 January of this year at about 1526 hours, PC34508 (PW2) and another officers found you inside a vacant building at 58 Ma Tau Kok Road, To Kwa Wan.  The building was owned by a real estate company.

6.  Mr Ng concedes that this was a domestic premises. There were signs indicating its ownership.  You were found at the 3rd floor standing on a cabinet taking down the air-conditioner.

7.  Upon inquiry, you admitted intending to steal it.  Arrested and cautioned, you admitted you had no money which was why you were trying to take down the air-conditioner to sell.

8.  You were wearing gloves.  The police found a trolley belonging to you outside the building.  On that trolley were two hammers, two pairs of pliers, one crowbar, one screwdriver, and a pair of gloves.

9.  You admitted to 43 previous convictions, 21 of which were similar.  On your behalf Mr Ng entered very little mitigation.  There was indeed little to be said.  He told me that you are 56 years old, divorced but cohabiting and have three children.   

10.  You are now remorseful and the goods involved are of very small value.  The iron bar was worth about $40 and the air-conditioning unit $100 to $200. 

11.  The premises were domestic premises but vacant at the time.  He confirmed that you committed these offences out of poverty. 

12.  He referred me to the fact that the last conviction was some 3 years ago in 2008, and he asked me to consider making part of the sentences concurrent. 

13.  I turn now to the sentence itself.

14.  Burglary is always a serious matter.  You have a particularly bad record involving crimes of dishonestly.  Also I note that the second offence, that of burglary, was committed whilst you were on bail for the first offence.

15.  In your favour, the goods were of little value and you appear to have been entirely cooperative with the police on arrest. 

16.  Taking all factors into account, on the first offence I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 months.

17.  On the second offence, whilst noting these were vacant domestic premises, your poor record works against you.  I would therefore take the standard tariff of 3 years down to 2 years.

18.  These are separate and distinct offences, the second being committed whilst you were on bail for the first.  Therefore, in my opinion it is right in principle they should be consecutive, and consecutive they are, making it 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.