|
DCCC 1114/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1114 OF 2012
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Ng Wai-yin |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
8 January 2013 at 10.23 am |
| Present: |
Mr Vincent Lee, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Yuen Kam-hung, of K H Yuen & David Cheung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.
2. The defendant committed the burglary at a restaurant at which he had formerly been employed as a waiter. The restaurant concerned is the Wen Ding Restaurant of the ground floor of Hing Wong Court, 21 Tai Wong Street East in Wanchai. The restaurant opens at lunchtime and also in the evening between 6 and 11 pm.
3. On the morning of 19 October 2012, the staff of the restaurant found that the lock of the wine cabinet at the restaurant had been prised and four bottles of wine were missing. The value of the wine was in excess of $50,000 and each bottle had a serial number.
4. CCTV recordings were inspected and they showed that on 15 October, at about 2240 hours, the defendant entered the restaurant via a rear door at the ground floor and left about 20 minutes later. He returned at 2335 hours and 15 minutes later he was observed leaving the restaurant via the same door, pushing a trolley with what appeared to be bottles of wine in boxes on top of the trolley.
5. The restaurant manager recognised the defendant from the CCTV footage, and the manager confirmed that the defendant worked as the restaurant as a waiter and had been supplied with a key for that purpose. The defendant’s employment was terminated in September of 2012 and the manager had requested the return of the key for the rear door at the ground floor of the restaurant but the defendant failed to return it. The manager also confirmed that there was a trolley missing from the storeroom at the ground floor of the restaurant.
6. Police recovered the stolen bottles of wine from a second-hand goods store in Tsim Sha Tsui, and the restaurant staff were able to confirm that they were the stolen property because of their serial numbers.
7. The defendant’s residence in Reclamation Street, Mongkok was searched and the stolen trolley was recovered from there. In a video-recorded interview, the defendant made a full confession. He admitted being a former employee of the restaurant and being supplied with a key which he had failed to return to the manager when he left that employment. He admitted having used the key to access the premises and steal the wine. He said he took the property back to his residence. He said he later discarded the key and sold the wine for $2,400 and spent the money on meal and rent.
8. The defendant has appeared before the court on eight previous occasions in respect of 10 offences. None of those offences relate to offences of dishonesty. He was imprisoned in 2008 and 2009 for offences for a period of 8 months.
9. I am told in mitigation that the defendant is 49 years of age, he was educated to Form 3 level and has worked as a waiter for many years. He is single and he lives with his girlfriend. He has done so for the last six years. He had worked as a waiter for some 10 years and at the time of his arrest was earning about $9,000 a month from that employment. Although he does have family, he does not communicate with the members of his family.
10. I am told that the motivation for committing the offence was that he had lost money on soccer gambling and needed money to pay the rent. It was pointed out in mitigation that although the retail value of the property was estimated to be in excess of $50,000, the property was sold for a mere $2,400 and it was stressed that the retail value was the amount which the restaurant sold the property to customers. I was told that the admissions led to the recovery of the stolen property.
11. It was put to the court there was no forced entry of the premises. He used the key to enter the premises and there was only slight damage caused to the wine cabinet lock. As a former employee of the restaurant entrusted with the key, this could be regarded as a breach-of-trust case. However, it was pointed out that the defendant was a low-level employee and most of the waiters were supplied with keys to access the premises.
12. Having taken all those features of the case into account, I propose to take the view that the starting point appropriate for this offence is a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to credit for his guilty plea, so that sentence will be reduced by one-third. The defendant will go to prison for 20 months.
|