|
DCCC918/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 918 OF 2012
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Lai Kwai-sang |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
12 November 2012 at 10.20 am |
| Present: |
Mr Kwok Wing-lung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Stewart William Clark, of Brian Kong & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. He entered a building known as a hotel building under construction on Jaffe Road in Wanchai, and he stole rolls of electric wire, some bundles of electric wire, a bundle of copper pipe and some pipe fittings. The total value is approximately $3,700.
2. At the offence location, the rear entrance connecting to the building staircase was surrounded by wire netting fence and secured with a wire gate and a padlock.
3. On 18 August, at 6.30 in the morning, the nightshift security guard patrolled the construction site and found the padlock securing the wire netting gate missing, and he discussed the matter with the dayshift security guard who had arrived.
4. Whilst that discussion was taking place, the defendant suddenly came out of the building and tried to leave the construction site using the rear entrance. The defendant was carrying a backpack and one of the security guards blocked the way for the defendant. The defendant then ran back into the building and stayed inside the building whilst the two security guards guarded at the fence gate.
5. About 15 minutes later, the defendant again came down from the staircase and both guards were guarding at the fence gate. The defendant tried to climb over the wire netting fence surrounding the rear entrance but one of the guards pushed on the fence and the defendant failed to get out, and he then fled back into the building.
6. The police were summoned and when they arrived, they intercepted the defendant at the staircase between the ground floor and the 1st floor. When the security guards had initially seen the defendant, he immediately dropped down his handbag took his backpack out from the handbag and went back upstairs with his backpack. After a short chase, the defendant was arrested.
7. The officers took the defendant to the ground floor. One of the security guards immediately pointed him out as the man who tried to leave the construction site earlier.
8. The officers found the broken padlock inside the rear pocket of the defendant’s trousers which was the original padlock which had secured the fence gate. The stolen items referred to in the charge were recovered from the defendant’s handbag.
9. The defendant remained silent when he was cautioned at the scene, and construction workers were summonsed to the site and it transpired that the items stolen had come from the 15th floor of the building and were the property of Lap Kei Engineering Company Limited. The 15th floor was unlocked at the material time and was used as a store.
10. The defendant was interviewed at the police station and the interview was video-recorded. He told the police that he was walking by the construction site on the pedestrian junction of Marsh Road and Jaffe Road on his way to Luard Road to meet two friends. He claimed that the two security guards suddenly dragged him into the site and locked him up in the building. He claimed that they assaulted him and pushed him into the building. The defendant tried to escape but he could not. Feeling scared, he went upstairs.
11. He said that he found the handbag at the staircase between the ground floor and the 1st floor and it was unzipped, and the defendant saw that there were some wires inside the handbag. He claimed he never touched the handbag and kept walking upstairs. He said he then came across an unlocked room on the 5th floor, so he hid himself inside the room, and it was there that he found a broken padlock and put that into his backpack. He said that he stayed there for one or two hours and was located by an unknown construction worker at the staircase and was then arrested by the police.
12. The defendant said he had never met PW1 before but said that he had met the second security guard on 17 August at about 5 pm. He said that bumped into a friend of his near to the site and then asked to borrow a pen from that security guard, but the security guard refused to lend him one.
13. With regard to the broken padlock, he said that he picked that up and kept it because if he could leave the building, he could sell it for $220, but if he could not leave, the police would find him and they would take him to the police station where he could report to the police that his family member/his mother had been missing since 2005.
14. The defendant has appeared before the court on a number of previous occasions for a variety of offences, including robbery, theft, assault with intent to rob, and drugs offence. His last conviction was in 2009 when for assault with intent to rob and assault and for breach of a suspended sentence. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 and a half years. I am told that he was released from prison on 16 January 2012.
15. The defendant is 34 years of age. He was born in Hong Kong and was educated to Form 2 standard. He has had employment previously, dealing with in wastepaper and metal recycling. I am told he is single and lives alone in Shau Kei Wan and was not working at the time of the offence.
16. The defendant has submitted a letter to the court, expressing his remorse for his commission of this offence, and he said that when he was released from prison on the last occasion, he was planning to apply for a fashion designer studying programme, and that that was unsuccessful. He says he has economic problems and he said that he could not lead an ordinary life because of his previous convictions, and he asked the court to deal with him leniently.
17. The mitigation entered on behalf of the defendant reminded the court that these were non-residential premises. It was a building site and all the goods had been recovered. I am told that counsel pointed out to his client that for an offence of this kind, the usual starting point would be 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.
18. I noted in this case that the premises were surrounded by a security fence which was locked and there was a security guard on duty. The defendant broke the security padlock in order to gain access to the premises. I also noted that the properties stolen were stolen from the 15th floor of the premises, and the defendant made a determined effort to escape once he was seen by the security guards.
19. Having been caught red-handed, the defendant denied the offence. It was not a simple denial. He made allegations against the security guards. He made allegations of assault and false imprisonment against them. He gave the police a somewhat imaginative explanation to explain his presence at the building site.
20. Having taken all those features of the case into account, I have decided that the appropriate starting point should be 2 and a half years’ imprisonment. I give the defendant credit for his guilty plea. The sentence will be 20 months’ imprisonment.
|