|
DCCC1207/2008
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1207 OF 2008
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Sherpa Shove (D2) |
|
----------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Tallentire
Date: 14 April 2009 at 9.45 am
|
Present:
|
Mr Jeff Ho, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Salim Hoosen, assigned by the Legal Aid Department, instructed by Messrs Haldanes, for the 2nd Defendant
|
Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
Reasons for Sentence
1. Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.
2. Briefly, the facts are as follows. At approximately 2.50 am on 29 October last, PC3709, PW1, whilst patrolling Reclamation Street, saw you and another man walking towards Ning Po Street. He kept you under observation. You were seen to enter an alley and climb to the podium of 22 Battery Street, Yaumatei. You were seen five minutes later on the podium. You then climbed down with a bag on your shoulder and rejoined the other male.
3. PW1 then rushed forward but you fled. PC54403, PW2, intercepted you. The bag contained a staff card, a card holder, a pen, a packet of chewing gum, a comb and seven stamps. The bag and its contents belonged to a female named Thapa Nilam (PW3), the occupant of Room 3, 1st Floor, 20-22 Battery Street. The bag had been stolen from those premises.
4. Under caution, as is your right, you remained silent. You admitted to five previous convictions, four of which involved dishonesty.
5. Prior to sentence, I called for and considered the Probation Officer’s background report. That report painted a somewhat unhappy picture. Various aspects of your life and problems were revealed.
6. On your behalf, Mr Hoosen entered mitigation. Amongst other things, he told me that you were remorseful and pointed to your plea of guilty. He said that your entry into the premises was not forced but via an open door and that there was no ransacking of those premises, nor was anyone threatened or harmed. In respect of your record, whilst accepting you have previous convictions, he said this was the first offence of burglary. On your behalf, he asked for leniency.
7. When sentencing you, I took into account the mitigation advanced, the information contained in the Probation Officer’s report and, of course, the facts of the case. Of major significance was the charge itself. That charge is burglary of domestic premises, a very serious offence. I note this is your fifth offence involving dishonesty, although it is your first offence of burglary. I noted also that the goods stolen were of little value and all recovered, although this is purely fortuitous. I took into account that there was no forced entry and no ransacking.
8. I pause now to say that the officers in this case should be congratulated for their vigilance and their decisive action in apprehending you and I ask the prosecutor to bring this to the attention of the OC Case.
9. The major point in mitigation in this case is, of course, your plea of guilty. I can see no reason to depart from the normal sentencing tariff in this case, therefore I take as a starting point 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2. You will go to prison for 2 years.
| |
Tallentire |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|