HKSAR v.SIU YUK LEUNG VICKY

DCCC112/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 112 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to one account of attempted burglary (Charge 1) another count of loitering with intent (Charge 2).

2.  On Tai Building, which was situated at Ting On Street, Kwun Tong, was a six storey residential building which, at the material time, was under renovation with scaffolding erected outside.  I understand that the building was occupied at the time. 

3.  At about 2055 hours on 22 December 2010, a resident living next to On Tai Building saw a man climbing on the scaffolding erected outside the building.  That resident saw a man flashing a torch into one of the flats on the 5th Floor.  Feeling suspicious, he made a report to the police.  He then saw the man climbing up to the rooftop of the building and then disappeared.

4.  Upon arrival at the building at 2105 hours on the same day, a police officer saw the Defendant climbing on the scaffolding outside 3rd Floor of the building.  The police officer than climbed up the scaffolding and intercepted the Defendant.  The Defendant was brought back to the building and the caution was administered.  The Defendant admitted under caution that he climbed up the scaffolding with intent to steal from the unattended flats.  

5.  The Defendant further admitted that he had flashed his torch into one of the flats on the 5th Floor but he did not manage to enter the flat.  The Defendant was then arrested by the police. 

6.  The Defendant was interviewed subsequently under caution.  He again admitted that he climbed up the scaffolding erected outside the building with intent to steal from the unattended flats.  However, as most of the windows were secured, he was unable to gain entry into the flats.  He stated that he committed the offence out of greed. 

7.  He further admitted that on 21 December 2010 at about 2000 hours to 2100 hours, he was outside the same building and was preparing to climb up the scaffolding to steal.  He however, did not manage to do so as he saw some police officers in the vicinity.  He therefore aborted his plan.

8.  The offence on 22 December 2010 was the subject matter of Charge 1 and the offence on 21 December 2010 was the subject matter of Charge 2.

9.  The Defendant is aged 47.  He has 10 previous convictions with three related to theft and one of robbery.  The last conviction was in 2009.  I am being told that the Defendant is not a drug addict any more and he committed the offence because he wanted to make a financial contribution to his family.  I am also given to understand that the Defendant had been unemployed for quite some time before the commission of the present offences.

10.  The Defendant’s solicitor also informs the court that the Defendant had contracted tuberculosis after he was detained because of the present offences.    

11.  The normal starting point for burglary in domestic premises is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  Taking into account the facts of the present case and the Defendant in fact climbed through the scaffolding, I have no reason to depart from the 3 years starting point.  Further, the building was occupied at the time. 

12.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, I reduce his sentence for Charge 1 to one of 2 years’ imprisonment.  I do not find all the others factors advanced by the Defendant’s solicitor justify any further reduction in the sentence.  I therefore impose such sentence for Charge 1.  

13.  For Charge 2, the maximum sentence is one of 6 months’ imprisonment.  Taking into account the facts of the present case, I adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to one of 2 months’ imprisonment. 

14.  Taking into account the proximity of the time between the two offences and that both offences also involved the same mode of operation, I am prepared to treat both offences as part of one transaction.

15.  I therefore order that the sentence in Charge 2 to run concurrent with the sentence in Charge 1.