HKSAR v. LEE KA MING

DCCC844/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 844 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a burglary charge. The premises in question were a restaurant, a non-domestic premises.

2.  The defence admit as facts that he in the early morning in question followed the ex-employee of the victim restaurant and went inside from the rear door.  They stayed there for about 10 minutes.  In the meantime, six to eight bottles were taken from the cabinet and put inside the rucksack which belonged to the defendant.  They then left the premises, went to Mongkok, and eventually left Hong Kong to Mainland together. 

3.  The entrance into the premises was captured by the CCTV machine and apparently on this basis the defendant was stopped and arrested when he passed through the checkpoint about 11 days after in Lo Wu when he came back to Hong Kong in the evening.  

4.  Since then he was detained up to now - today is early November - for a total of about 5 months. 

5.  His lawyer wrote to the court to indicate that the defendant wanted to plead guilty to the charge, and after accommodating the defence counsel’s diary, today the case was brought up for mention for plea.  

6.  The defendant is a young man.  He is now 23 years old.  He has no criminal record, not at all.  He received education up to Form 3.  He used to be working in the restaurant and bakery.  Nothing eventful is noted in his health record.  He is not a drug addict either.        

7.  The defence submitted to the court a volunteer worker certificate to prove that he was involved for about a year in the Senior Citizen’s Welfare Service.  The defence say, which is believed, if he is not caught by this case, if he did not get into trouble with the law, he would have been in the service all along.     

8.  The defence reiterated that the defendant was frank all along.  He was truly remorseful and he is sincere.  The defence is asking the court to give him a chance.       

9.  While there is some guidelines, even though not straitjacket, by the Court of Appeal, the defence asked the court to see if this is a right case not to adopt those guidelines, for the guidelines for non-domestic premises is 30 months’ imprisonment, 2½ years’ imprisonment, to start.  

10.  The defence stressed the defendant has a clear record and he is young,  the defendant is not the mastermind of this, but at the same time admitted the defendant was there to help the wanted person for money.   

11.  The defence says that the defendant was senior enough to be a guarantor for the wanted person in the first place, and because of being a guarantor, he himself ran into debt, even though it was not him who flung the money, and some chasers so to speak came to him and knocked on the door and in a way made him very embarrassed.  The defence asked to me to believe, and I do believe that in fact they would not be too nice. 

12.  Coupled with this pressure and thinking of a way to solve the problem, they came up with the plan to go to the restaurant in question to steal some bottles of wine and to sell them for money so that the debt could be repaid. 

13.  While the defence is frank enough to disclose the reason behind this ordeal, this explanation reflects that the defendant knew full well what they were going to do and what for, i.e., money. 

14.  While I have a natural sympathy for albeit a young man having committed the offence for the first time, which happened to be very serious, I can think of no valid reason why I cannot apply the Court of Appeal tariff, but your personal background, and the fact that you have a clear record, you are young, will be reflected in the final sentence.

15.  First of all, I can think of no other way to deal with you apart from putting you to jail.  Even though your age is still within the range of Detention Centre parameters, this is not the option for me because of the seriousness of the offence.

16.  For imprisonment, I will adopt the Court of Appeal guideline of 30 months to start; the guilty plea, one-third discount has to be given to you, and therefore the sentence is reduced to 20 months. 

17.  Now, 23 years old is not very young but is young.  The first time commission of an offence sometimes may not induce further discount but I consider in this case it does, for among other things, obviously you are not the mastermind of this.  Without the wanted person knowing the premises so well, you might not have done it. 

18.  For your particular role, a secondary role in question, youth, and as a first time defendant, I give you 3 months’ discount, and now effectively I sentence you to 17 months’ imprisonment.