HKSAR v. CHU WING FUNG

 DCCC801/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 801 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary, each contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the Brief Facts and I convicted you.

2.  Those facts were as follows. PW1 is the proprietor of a dancing school called the Hong Kong Camyacamey of Dancing at 165 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long. It occupies two storeys.

3.  At about 3.30 pm on 14 June last, PW1 left the school secured. At about 5.40 pm, PW2, who lived next-door to the school, saw an unknown male wearing gloves enter the school via a second-floor window. Three minutes later, that male appeared in the courtyard and left the scene. That was Charge 1.

4.  At about 5.50 pm that same day, PW2 saw the same male enter the school again via the same window. PW2 told the male that he would report the matter to the police. The male left. PW1 then returned to the school at about 6.30 pm that day to find a drawer prised and damaged. The police were informed (Charge 2).

5.  PC33362 (PW3) and PC9488 (PW4) attended the scene. At about 7.55 pm that day, you appeared at the main entrance to the school. Not unsurprisingly, PW2 identified you as the male who had entered the school twice before.

6.  Under caution, you admitted both offences. You claimed that you were in need of money and confessed to damaging the lock. Upon arrest, you said, “I am sorry. I do not have a job, so I entered it to steal some money to buy meals.”

7.  You admitted to two previous convictions, both of which were similar. The case had originally been adjourned to obtain a probation officer’s background report, and based upon the information contained in that report, I further adjourned for two psychiatric reports in order to consider the making of a hospital order. Whilst you are undergoing psychiatric treatment and are assessed to be mild-grade mentally retarded, there is no recommendation nor need to make a hospital order in this case.

8.  Mr Wu on your behalf entered mitigation. You are 22 years of age and, as I said, assessed to be suffering from mild-grade mental retardation. Quite rightly, Mr Wu stressed your plea of guilty and your co-operation with the police upon arrest. The motivation for the commission of offence, I am told, is that you had no money and wished to buy some food. Mr Wu asked me to take into account the principle of totality when assessing sentence.

9.  I turn now to the sentence. I have fully taken into account the contents of the reports and the mitigation advanced on your behalf. I do note this is your third conviction for burglary. I do also note that whilst you entered the premises, there was no actual breaking and that nothing was taken. It is true to say that you were entirely co-operative with the police at the scene. You are relatively young and you have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

10.  I do also take into account your mental condition. There are, I note, two separate offences but in reality, it seems to me it is more like one offence which continues. For the purpose of sentence, I am going to treat it as such.

11.  Taking all factors into account, I intend to impose the tariff sentence, that is, one of 30 months reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty. Therefore, you will go to prison for a period of 20 months on each offence, to be served concurrently, a total of 20 months.