HKSAR v. CHAN MAN TING

DCCC450/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 450 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  The particulars are that the defendant, together with other persons, entered a shop on Stanley Main Street between 9 May and 10 May 2011 and stole from within.

The Facts

3.  The victim premises were in Stanley Main Street and is a garment shop, a non-domestic premise.  PW1 worked in this garment shop. She is also a relative of the defendant.  When she left the premise on 9 May she locked the gate as per usual.  The next morning, 10 May, at about 9.30, she returned to work and discovered that the switch box of the roller shutter of the premises had been prised open.  When she entered the premises she found that the cash register had also been prised open.  Approximately $2,000 cash was stolen from within the cash register.

4.  The police were able to lift two fingerprints from the premises and matched one taken from the cash register to the left forefinger of the defendant.  The owner of the premises informed the defendant’s mother that a fingerprint of the defendant had been found on the cash register.  Subsequently the defendant surrendered to the police, accompanied by her mum. 

5.  The defendant is now 27 years old and single. She is now pregnant and fell pregnant after the offence.  She is due to give birth in December 2012.  The defendant is not a woman of clear record.  Her previous convictions involve offences relating to triad offences, offences involving violence, money laundering, possession of dangerous drugs and dishonesty.  According to the defendant’s criminal record, she has been placed on probation twice and breached a probation order twice.  This offence was committed whilst on probation. 

6.  I have heard full mitigation put forward on her behalf.  I have also been given letters of mitigation from the defendant, her mother and a number of relatives, including PW1.  I have taken into account the defendant surrendered to the police and, under caution, made a full admission. She admitted that she had broken into the premises with two other males, that one male had prised open the cash register, and it was the defendant that took the cash.  They all left at the same time. 

7.  The defendant’s best mitigation is her plea of guilty.  Following a series of relevant authorities the customary or normal sentence for a burglary of a non-domestic premise is 2 years and 6 months in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors.  The fact is that the shop that was the target was connected to a relative of the defendant.  And there were also three burglars in total.  But after careful consideration I will not find these two particular facts to be aggravating factors as far as an increase in a starting point is concerned.

8.  At the same time I do not find it a mitigating factor that the defendant felt she had no other choice but to take part in this burglary.  She stresses that she was not acting under duress but was under financial pressure to repay a debt to these accomplices. 

9.  In addition, the fact she is now pregnant is also not a mitigating factor I will take into account.  It does not justify any reduction in a sentence in view of the seriousness of this offence. 

10.  Defendant, please stand up.  After considering the facts of this case and the mitigation put forward, I will take the customary starting point of 2 years and 6 months for this offence, and find it entirely appropriate.  Defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for her plea of guilty today.  That is a discount of 10 months. 

11.  Defendant is ultimately, for this offence, sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.