HKSAR v. SO YUET PO

DCCC 670/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 670 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one burglary charge, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2. On 31 May this year, you entered a storeroom as a trespasser.  This storeroom was in the Plover Cove Road Market, Tai Po, New Territories.  You used to work at this market as a cleaner.  That means you are familiar with the market and its layout.  On the material day, you entered the storeroom which was not locked at the time, searched a rucksack that did not belong to you and found $20 in it and took it away.

3. Whilst you were looking in this rucksack, a worker entered the storeroom and asked about your presence there.  You told him a lie and said you were a repair worker, making out that you had authority to be in the storeroom.  He accepted your explanation.

4. Later, when the money was discovered missing, you were identified on the CCTV footage.  A police report was made.  When the police contacted you, you yourself went to the police station and there you made a full admission. 

5. You are not a man of clear record, but I will treat you as a man of clear record because you have one previous conviction and it was over 20 years ago.  The nature of the offence is completely different and you were fined.

6. I have heard full mitigation today.  Defence counsel has done his best to mitigate on your behalf.  Your best mitigation is your plea.  You have worked hard since leaving school, mainly manual work.  You are a married man with a 9‑year-old son.  Your wife is here in court today to support you.

7. I have two mitigating letters before me, one from yourself and one from a District Councillor.  I have taken their contents into account.  Counsel has said all he can.  He has pointed out all the best mitigating factors that he can.  He does ask the court to consider a non-custodial sentence and if that is not appropriate, he has submitted that I should and could depart from the normal sentence, normal tariff for this offence. He has submitted some authorities for my consideration.

8. Normally, a starting point of 2 and a half years is appropriate for a burglary of a non-domestic premise.  I have considered the facts of this case.  I have considered everything said on your behalf.  I appreciate that ultimately you only took $20, but that is because there was only $20 to take.  I am sure if the rucksack had more valuables, you would have been tempted to take all.

9. I appreciate that the storeroom was unlocked at the time and you did not break in or scare or threaten anyone.  The fact is you worked in those premises previously.  You knew that there was a storeroom that possibly could have some valuables left there by workers.  This is not a case where you as a stranger walked into a strange place and acted on impulse.  For these reasons, a non-custodial sentence is not appropriate.

10. Defendant, please stand up.  I reiterate that I take into account your plea, treat you as a man of clear record, take the view that you are a good family man who has made a mistake.  You took a chance when you went back to your old workplace. 

11. I will take a lower starting point than the normal starting point to reflect these factors.  I will take a 15 months’ starting point.  You have pleaded and you are entitled to a discount of 5 months.  For this offence, I am sentencing you to 10 months’ imprisonment.  You understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understood.