|
DCCC1199/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1199 OF 2011
----------------------
----------------------
| Before:
|
H H Judge Tallentire
|
| Date:
|
29 February 2012 at 10.24 am
|
| Present:
|
Miss Margaret Lau, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
|
|
|
Mr John Paul Beukema, of Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 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. You admitted the facts and I convicted you.
3. The facts were as follows.
4. PW1 resided at Room E, 2nd Floor, Fortune Court, 4-6 Tak Hing Street, Jordan.
5. At about 12.45 pm on 11 October last, he left his flat with the iron gate and the main door locked.
6. On his return at 4.15 pm, he found the iron gate locked from the inside and the main door ajar. Suddenly, you opened the door from the inside and told PW1 not be afraid.
7. PW1 then went downstairs and reported the matter to security.
8. PC 34216 (PW3) and other officers arrived shortly after. As the iron gate could not be opened, PW1 and PW3 climbed onto the balcony of the flat via Room D. They saw you climbing down the outer wall of the next building.
9. PW2 saw you appear at her window on the 3rd floor of 3 Tak Hing Street. She asked you to climb to somewhere safe.
10. You were intercepted by PW3.
11. A search revealed a razor blade (E1), a nail file (E2) with a torch attached, a mobile phone and a key in your trousers pocket.
12. You claimed that E1 and E2 were used to remove skin on your hands and feet. You claimed that you had intended to climb to your elder brother’s flat at Room A2 of the 1st floor of the building.
13. Under caution, you claimed you could not find your way down due to the rain, so you left through the foreigner’s flat.
14. PW1 found his flat had been ransacked but nothing taken.
15. You admit to eight previous convictions on seven occasions.
16. On the last occasion, Mr Beukema told me that you had suffered from mental problems and the reports were not yet ready. Therefore, I adjourned for a probation officer’s background report to assist me.
17. That report is now before me, has been considered by me and I understand you accept the contents.
18. In respect of psychiatric reports, Mr Beukema explained that he had not been able to obtain them and gave the reasons why he had not been able to do so. However, he felt that, in any event, they would not take the matter any further.
19. At my request, Mr Beukema clarified one matter in paragraph 4 of the report, and that is that you were not, in fact, denying the offence and you accepted that you intended to steal from the flat.
20. On your behalf in mitigation, Mr Beukema asked me to take into account the information contained in that probation officer’s report which, very sensibly, he felt no need to repeat.
21. That report tells me you are 32 years of age, separated from your wife and educated to Form 3. Up until the time of your arrest, you had been employed as a captain in a restaurant.
22. Mr Beukema said, in fact, emphasised that you had stolen nothing from the flat, that you had pleaded guilty and that though you had a poor record, this was the first offence of burglary. It is very clear that the problems you have are largely drug-related.
23. Mr Beukema also felt that a further psychiatric investigation was unnecessary and I accept that.
24. It was accepted that you are at the moment serving a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment, your earliest date of release being 18 March of 2012, and that was for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
25. Turning to the sentence itself, whilst I have taken into account the contents of the probation officer’s report, the mitigation advanced, and noted your criminal record, the only real mitigation here is your plea of guilty.
26. I can see no reason to depart from the standard tariff for burglary of domestic premises.
27. Therefore, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 2 for your plea of guilty, and purely as an act of mercy, that will be run concurrently with your existing sentence.
|