HKSAR v. KO WAI TIM

DCCC1335/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1335 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary.  At about 1630 hours on 17 November 2010, two civilian witnesses saw an unknown male, who was at the rooftop of a building situated at Castle Peak Road, climbed to the adjacent building.  A case was then reported to the police.

2.   At about 1653 hours, a police officer arrived at the rooftop of a seven-storey building situated at No. 312 Castle Peak Road.  He saw the Defendant inside a flat of the adjacent building, i.e. Room 1, 7th Floor, Kin Wing Building, No. 310C Castle Peak Road (“the Premises”).  When the police officer attempted to make enquiry with the Defendant, the Defendant ignored him and left the Premises.  The police officer then climbed into the Premises and noticed that they had been ransacked.  He immediately summoned reinforcement.

3.   Shortly thereafter, a team of police officers saw the Defendant came out from the building of No. 308 to 310 Castle Peak Road.  Upon seeing the team of police officers, the Defendant immediately returned back to the building and tried to hide himself inside a salon on the mezzanine floor of the building.  The team of police officers immediately followed him and located him at the salon.

4.   About 10 minutes later, the police officer, who earlier arrived at the Premises, also arrived at the salon.  He identified the Defendant as the male he saw inside the Premises.  The Defendant was arrested.  Under caution, he remained silent.

5.   At the material time, the Defendant entered into the Premises as a trespasser and attempted to steal therein.  The Premises are also domestic premises.

6.   The Defendant is aged 53.  He has 12 previous convictions, with 4 related to burglary with the last one in 2001, 1 related to robbery and 3 related to going equipped for stealing.  The Defendant is married.  He had a son aged 16 and a daughter aged 5.  Unfortunately he has unstable employment, and as a result he committed the present offence because of economic pressure. 

7.   According to Mr Tong, solicitor for the Defendant, there was no financial loss to the victim concerned, and he therefore asks the court to treat the Defendant as leniently as possible.

8.   There has been established guideline for the sentencing of burglary offences.  Since domestic premises were involved in the present case, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 2 years' imprisonment. 

9.   I do not find that the mitigating factors advanced by the Defendant’s solicitor justify any further reduction in the sentence, and 2 years' imprisonment is the sentence I impose in the present case.