HKSAR v. LEE TONG KIN

DCCC888/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 888 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  You admitted that, on 24 May, you burgled a restaurant at No. 8 Wylie Road, Ho Man Tin in Kowloon, known as the “Hong Kong Chinese Civil Servants Association”.  You stole edibles of 14 cans of abalone, two boxes of tea leaves, one packet of American ginseng and six bottles of wine.  The value of the goods amounted to $9,850.

3.  The restaurant had closed its business at 11.30 pm on 23 May 2012 and thereafter it was left unattended.  At about 2.20 am the following day, some three hours later, the alarm system installed at the rear of the restaurant was activated.  An officer immediately attended the restaurant and upon arriving there saw you fleeing from the rear of the restaurant in a furtive manner.  He detained you for enquiries. You claimed that you were there looking for friends.  The officer also saw an abandoned black plastic bag with the edibles inside (the subject matter of the charges.)

4.  When the manager of the restaurant returned the CCTV footage, which is installed at rear of the restaurant, was viewed.  The officer recognised you in the CCTV by your build and your clothing.  You were captured breaking the knob of the door with a hammer and kicking the door. 

5.  Forensic scientists went to the restaurant and lifted two overlapping partial shoe prints that were lifted from the outside panel of the door, and also another partial footprint from the floor in front of the glass wardrobe in the restaurant.  Another forensic scientist compared those footprints with the controlled sample footprints of the shoes you were wearing and found that the footprints left at the scene matched your shoeprints.

6.  In the video recorded interview you admitted, under caution, that at the material time you were a bit drunk and therefore you broke open the door at the restaurant with a hammer and stole the goods, but just as you left the restaurant the alarm system was activated and therefore you fled and abandoned the goods outside the restaurant.

7.  Defendant, you are aged 39 and a divorcee, with a 12 year old son.  You are living with your parents and other siblings.  You have three previous convictions, two of which are similar.  A burglary committed in 1989 and an attempted burglary committed in 1990, you were sentenced to detention centre. 

8.  Mr Ng, your solicitor, has made full mitigation on your behalf.  I have taken into account what he has had to say.  I have also taken into account the letter which you have written to me expressing your remorse about your commission of this offence. 

9.  You are a cook in a restaurant.  However, since February 2012 you became unemployed and, as a result of economic pressure and your unemployment, you committed this offence.

10.  You have said that you know the seriousness of this offence.  I am sure you do as you have had two previous similar convictions, though I accept they are now some 20-odd years ago.

11.  Defendant, as you well know, there are tariff guidelines for the offence of burglary.  This was an offence of burglary of commercial premises.  Had I convicted you after trial the appropriate sentence would have been one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.  However, giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, I reduce that term to one of 1 year 8 months’ imprisonment, to which you are so sentenced.