HKSAR v. LAU SHUI LEUNG

DCCC1135/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1135 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary, each contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the Brief Facts and I convicted you.

2.  Briefly, the facts were as follows.  PW1 and PW2 were technicians of the MTR, working at Kowloon Freight Terminal, Hong Wan Path, Hunghom. 

Charge 1

3.  On 3 September of this year, at about 7.30 am, PW2 was informed by the control room that an unknown person was seen leaving the Freight Terminal by climbing over the wall.  PW2 found a bundle of signal wire to be stolen from the premises.  It was valued at $750.  He made a report to the police.

Charge 2

4.  At about 3 pm that day, PW1 checked the premises and found all to be in order.  There were two bundles of signal wire in the premises.  He locked the gate and left.  On 4 September, at about 7.08 am, police were patrolling at the junction of Cheong Hang Road and Winslow Street. PW3 saw you pushing a trolley into the rear lane and looking around.  This was outside the wall of the Freight Terminal.  You picked two bags which contained the wire and placed them on the trolley.

5.  You were intercepted and admitted that at about 5 am you had climbed the wall and stolen the property.  You left them on the ground outside the wall and went to find a trolley to move them.

6.  PW3 arrested you, and under caution, you admitted stealing the properties from the premises as you had no money.  You also admitted stealing property on 3 September.  PW1 confirmed the theft of the property and went to the police station to identify it.  The value was $490.

7.  In a video-recorded interview, you admitted to the facts.  You also admitted the offence on 3 September.  You said you had sold that wire for $200.

8.  You admitted to 35 previous convictions on 28 appearances.  Nine involved dishonesty and five were in fact burglaries.  On your behalf, Mr Man entered mitigation.  He stressed the unsophisticated nature of the acts of burglary which occurred because of poor security at the premises, also the small value of the goods involved.  He told me that the offences occurred because after your discharge from prison on 6 July, you found it difficult to fit into society and difficult to find work.  You needed money for food.  He emphasised your co-operation with the police, especially your admission to the first offence.

9.  I turn now to the sentence.  I accept that these were very unsophisticated acts of burglary.  They involved goods of small value. I accept also that you were entirely co-operative with the police on arrest, admitting the first offence.  I do note your appalling criminal record.  Under all the circumstances, I will adopt the tariff. 

10.  On each offence, I take a starting point of 30 months, reduced to 20 months.  To apply the principle of totality to the sentence, it will be served in this way.  The first 20 months will be served in total.  The 20 months on Charge 2 will be served 4 months consecutively and 16 months concurrently.  That is a total of 24 months, 2 years’ imprisonment.