|
DCCC 584/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 584 OF 2014
----------------------
----------------------
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
28 October 2014 at 10.18 am |
| Present: |
Ms Bina Sujanani, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Yap Ching-ching, instructed by Joseph Leung & Associates, 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 one charge of burglary, burglary committed on 27 April this year.
2. It had been committed at the Fu King Cold Meat Company Limited and the premises were left secured in the evening and on the next day the shutter railing was found to have been prised and opened. The premises were ransacked. $2,500 of cash had been taken. Two trolleys and ten boxes of frozen meat were also missing.
3. The premises were installed with CCTV cameras. They showed that two males had arrived at the premises and taken the two trolleys and the ten boxes of frozen meat away. This was at about 6 o’clock in the evening.
4. The defendant was recognised from the CCTV footage as a person who had worked there before on 26 March and a record of his name and identity number had been taken.
5. The defendant was arrested and was recognised as being one of the people from the relevant CCTV footage, and an identification parade was held.
6. It is said the defendant has pleaded guilty to this offence and it is said that, given the state of the evidence against him, that showed a bold decision, showing some remorse.
7. Now, as far as the defendant’s previous convictions are concerned, he has six previous court appearances. He has committed offences of dishonesty since 2003; received a suspended sentence in 2007; committed a money laundering offence in 2011; most recently, on 28 March 2013, convicted of two burglaries; and received a total of 24 months’ imprisonment for those offences.
8. The defendant was released from prison on 15 March 2014. It would appear from this then that he attended work at the burgled premises on 26 March, some 10 days later, and then committed this offence a month later. So the defendant has reverted back to committing burglary - a serious offence - within just over a month of release from the last burglary committed.
9. The defendant is aged 30.
10. I obtained a background report on him, because it did seem he had some stability in his life from his girlfriend, Madam Tsui. This is, as I say, a source of stability in his life. She has said she will marry him and she will stand by him whilst he is imprisoned. This is a positive aspect and may lead to the defendant’s rehabilitation in the future.
11. Otherwise, the report is not particularly encouraging. The defendant is described as a repeated offender who lost his father when he was young. He has worked mostly as a transportation worker, but has a number of offences, and I am told that he has a poor respect for law and order.
12. The defendant’s repeated incarceration and support of his girlfriend may well have changed that dynamic. We do not know yet.
13. As far as the sentence is concerned, of course, the guideline sentence for a non-domestic burglary in a retail premises such as this would involve a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.
14. There are certain aggravating factors.
15. Firstly, the defendant committed the offence in the company of another person, so it is a planned enterprise, on the face of it.
16. Secondly, he is a repeat offender and a repeat offender in a very short period of time, which would be indicative of the fact that the previous sentence of imprisonment was insufficient to deter him from committing this offence.
17. It is said in mitigation that the offence was opportunistic, in that the defendant was actually going to see if he could find a job. He met another person, as it were, fortuitously and decided to commit the offence on the spur of the moment.
18. It is said there is no or little evidence that force was used to enter the premises. The defendant’s mitigation had been on the basis the premises were open.
19. From the facts, we can see that the roller shutter had been locked when the last person left the office and there were prise marks on the shutter railing, although the facts do not tell me at what time the premises had been locked.
20. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that they were opened in the way the defendant says and the facts admitted would appear to suggest that some force, although not great force, had been used to enter.
21. In determining the starting point for sentence, I consider that the actual aggravating factors are certainly the defendant’s committing this offence within a short period of being released from prison for the same offence and the fact that he acted in concert.
22. I consider that those factors should involve some element of addition to the normal starting point.
23. I will take in this case then a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment, which I will reduce to 24 months’ imprisonment, having regard to the defendant’s plea of guilty.
24. The sentence will be one of 24 months’ imprisonment.
|
(T Casewell)
|
|
District Judge |
|