|
DCCC122/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 122 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Lam Chun-wah |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
16 March 2011 at 2.45 pm |
| Present: |
Ms Jennifer Fok, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Joseph Li, of Joseph Li & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1)-(3) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary.
2. The first two charges were offences committed on 19 November 2010 at premises in Kin Wa House on the Kin Ming Estate in Tseung Kwan O.
3. The 3rd charge is a charge of burglary with intent, the premises on this occasion being a flat on the 5th Floor of Kin Fai House on the Kin Ming Estate.
4. The defendant and his girlfriend both live on the Kin Ming Estate. The defendant is the tenant of Room 620 in Kin Fai House but he lives with his girlfriend in an adjacent building at Room 1330 of Kin Wa House.
5. The last offence, on 21 November, was committed at about 2215 hours. The victim in that case was at home in Room 520 of Kin Fai House when he heard a noise coming from the kitchen and went to investigate. The defendant was climbing in through the kitchen window. When the victim shouted out, the defendant left through the window and was seen to go up to Room 620, which was above the victim’s premises. The victim immediately went upstairs and saw the defendant escaping to Kin Wa House. The victim, who finds it necessary to secure his kitchen window with a padlock, found that the padlock had been prised open.
6. The following day, an officer, who was conducting investigation at the estate, arrested the defendant as he tried to enter his girlfriend’s room. He admitted the burglary that was committed the day before and said he had used a screwdriver to pry open the kitchen window.
7. When he was in custody, it was discovered that his palm print matched a print found on the kitchen of Room 1430 of Kin Wa House. He admitted burgling these premises. Stolen from those premises was $1,400 in cash, RMB200, and two Octopus cards.
8. He admitted after he burgled those premises he had crawled down the water pipes and entered Room 1229 of Kin Wa House, again via the kitchen window, and stolen $4,700 and a Nokia mobile phone.
9. The defendant has appeared before the court on eight previous occasions in respect of 14 offences, six of those were for burglary. His last burglary offence was at the end of 2006 when he was sentenced to prison for 2 years.
10. I was told in mitigation the defendant is 38. He was born in Hong Kong, and was educated to Form 2 level. He is unemployed and in receipt of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. He lives with his girlfriend, and they have three children, all male. There is a eight year old boy, and nine month old twins. The elder boy is with foster parents and the twins are with a child care centre. I am told that he has been unemployed for some time.
11. In mitigation, it was urged upon me that the offences only involved small amounts of money.
12. Clearly, the defendant understands that offences of this kind attract custodial sentences. He has been to prison on a number of previous occasions for burglary offences.
13. For domestic burglaries, the usual sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment; the only mitigation being his guilty plea, and that will be reduced by one-third, to 2 years.
14. I have given some thought to increasing that sentence because it does not seem to be a deterrent to this particular defendant. I note, however, his last conviction was in 2006, and his only subsequent conviction was for an unrelated offence of possession of dangerous drugs in 2010.
15. I am persuaded, therefore, to leave the sentence at 3 years, and reduce it to 2 years in respect of each of the offences.
16. As regards the question of totality, his counsel has rightly pointed out two of the offences were committed one immediately after the other at adjacent premises. I have therefore decided that 2 months of the 2nd charge shall run consecutive to the 2 years on the 1st charge.
17. The third offence was committed on a different day, and the premises were occupied. I have decided that 4 months of that sentence should run consecutive to the other two sentences.
18. So the total sentence is one of 2 years and 6 months.
|