|
DCCC80/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 80 OF 2012
----------------------
----------------------
| Before:
|
H H Judge Tallentire
|
| Date:
|
3 May 2012 at 10.13 am
|
| Present:
|
Ms Chan Sze-yan, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
|
|
|
Mr Kwan Tong Lee, instructed by James W L Li & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
| Offence:
|
Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. Defendant, you were convicted after trial of one offence of burglary, that is burglary contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.
2. The facts have been fully dealt with in my earlier verdict and I do not intend to dwell on them, suffice it to say what happened is that you returned to your original workplace and were caught removing flour from the warehouse. The lorry that you had previously driven during your time of employment was to be used to remove the flour. At the time that you were intercepted, you had already placed 125 cartons of flour on that vehicle. I am told these are worth approximately $12,500, in fact nothing was actually lost.
3. You admitted to four previous convictions, three of which involved dishonesty. Little could be said by way of mitigation. Mr Kwan informed me that the antecedent statement was correct except to the extent that you are employed not unemployed. You are 55 years of age, employed in a metalwork company earning some $12,000 a month. Your aged parents in their 80’s reside in the mainland. You visit them on a weekly basis. You also provide $3,000 a month for their maintenance. You spend a like sum on your mortgage.
4. In respect of the offence, Mr Kwan made the point that there is no suggestion that this was premeditated and nothing was in fact lost. Mr Kwan correctly reminded me of the usual tariff, that being 2½ years’ imprisonment for non-domestic burglaries.
5. I turn now to the sentence itself. There really is not much to be said. You have a record which is not a good record but it is not of the worst. This was a burglary of non-domestic premises which was fortunately unsuccessful. There are overtures of breach of trust in that you had returned to your former workplace and used your knowledge of the arrangements. I accept that there is nothing to show that this was premeditated, however, I have to say that the evidence against you was, in my opinion, overwhelming and the conviction is on the clearest of basis. However, having said that, I can see no reason to part from the normal sentence. You will go to prison for 30 months.
|