HKSAR v. MAN FAT

DCCC 581/2020

[2020] HKDC 1104

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 581 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant, aged 40, pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary; the premises in question were a two-storey sushi shop located on the first floor of Wellcome Mansion in Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po.

2.  On the night of 3 May 2020 after the close of business at 21:00 hours with the business door, a roller shutter, being half way down, some of the staff including the assistant manager (Miss Lam) still remained inside the shop to tie up a few loose ends. The interior of the shop was installed with security cameras; once the intruder alarm was activated, any images captured would then be sent to the mobile phone of the shop manager (Mr Su) who happened to be on leave on the night in question.

3.  It was going on for mid-night by the time Miss Lam left the shop, but before leaving, she, being the last person to leave, had the roller shutter shut and locked.  

4.  Unbeknownst to Miss Lam, the defendant had earlier on sneaked into the shop and hid himself behind one of the two roll-up banners placed at the door of the shop and waited till everyone had gone, then started rummaging the shop for valuables.

5.  In fact, the defendant’s every move in the shop was captured by the security cameras, and not only that, his presence in the shop had also activated the intruder alarm which would send video images to the manager’s mobile phone.

6.  The CCTV footages depicted the defendant, wearing a face mask, wandering in the shop and at one stage going through the cash register only to find that there was no money in it – it is the shop policy not to keep any cash in the till overnight.

7.  As the security cameras caught the defendant in the act the images of which were sent to Mr Su’s mobile phone which alerted him. Mr Su saw an intruder in his shop and immediately reported the matter to the police and called Miss Lam at the same time.

8.  Both Mr Su and Miss Lam hurried back to the shop, and soon afterwards the responding police officers also arrived. Miss Lam opened the roller shutter to let the officers go in and there they had the defendant arrested. 

9.  The officers seized from the defendant a number of items he was carrying such as a shoulder bag, a towel, a torch, two screwdrivers, two pairs of pliers and a paper cutter etc.  

10.  In his interview with the police, the defendant told the officers that as he had been out of job for a year, he sneaked into the shop to steal. At the time the roller shutter was half shut he went in and hid himself behind the roll-up stand; when the shutter was shut everybody had gone away, he then started looking for valuable items; he found the cash register but there was no money in it.

11.  Not a stranger to the court, the defendant has 23 prior convictions most of which are dishonesty offences like theft, theft from vehicle, handling as well as burglary. All together 18 of them 5 to do with burglary. The only thing that could be said in his favour is that all these crimes were committed while the defendant was relatively young, his last conviction was in August 2011, some 9 years ago, in which he was given a suspended sentence for possession of drugs.

12.  In mitigation, the court heard that the defendant is married with an autistic son (14) who requires regular treatment. His wife, though working, has been suffering from depression for years. He used to be a lorry driver but due to the downturn of the economy, he was laid off in November 2019, and thereafter he could only do casual renovation work earning $700 a day.

13.  Counsel for the defendant, Mr Ng, stressed the fact that the defendant used no force to enter the shop and the shop suffered no losses in the end. The defendant is truly remorseful for what he has done, and has taken the earliest opportunity to indicate his plea of guilty.

14.  Mr Ng is right in saying that the greatest mitigating factor in the case is the defendant’s guilty plea. Given the facts of the case, I take 30 months as the starting point and reduce it by one-third to reflect his timely plea.

15.  Clearly the defendant is a repeat offender of dishonesty offences, however, in view of the fact that he has been out of trouble for quite some time (about 9 years on the record), I do not intend to enhance the sentence on this occasion.

16.  There being no reasons for further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.