HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING LAP

DCCC202/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 202 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of attempted burglary on 15 January this year, at Fung Tak Estate in Wong Tai Sin.

2.  A plain-clothes police officer who was on patrol in this estate spotted the defendant on the night in question on the 15th floor touching the iron grille of one flat and then putting his ear very close to the wooden door, obviously listening to see if there was anybody inside, and then moving to the opposite flat and pulling the iron grille as if trying to open it, after which he pushed the wooden door a few times.  The officer intercepted the defendant and arrested him for attempted burglary.  Under caution the defendant admitted that he had been trying the doors to see if he could find anything to steal in these flats. 

3.  The defendant is 41 years of age and he has a poor record: no fewer than 12 previous convictions for burglary and attempted burglary, dating from 1995 onwards.  His last conviction for burglary was in August 2006 for which he was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment, and in September last year I note that he was sentenced for a further few months’ imprisonment for the offence of loitering.

4.  This is as straightforward and simple a case as could possibly be found.  The starting point for burglary of domestic premises, and this includes attempted burglary, it is well established, should be 3 years’ imprisonment after trial.  With such a poor record and history of committing precisely the same offence of which he has been convicted today, it would be quite justifiable to adopt an enhanced starting point in excess of 3 years’ imprisonment.

5.  The defendant is liable to the same sentence in principle as he would receive for a completed burglary, bearing in mind it was just a matter of good fortune that there was a police officer on hand who spotted him in time before he was able to enter any premises.  However, bearing in mind that he had the good fortune to be intercepted, at such an early stage before he was able to do any harm, I am going to adopt a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment.  In return for his plea of guilty and co-operation, he is entitled to the normal one-third discount, which results in a sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence I impose.  

6.  There is very little information about the defendant apart from his record which speaks for itself, and the facts stated in the antecedent statement.  Looking at his record, he has been in and out of prison regularly since 1995 for these offences, and it is purely a matter of his choice whether he chooses to continue living that sort of life.  It seems a bleak existence to me, and he could very easily break the vicious cycle and live a law-abiding life once he has completed the present sentence, if he chooses.  The choice is entirely in his hands.