|
DCCC702/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 702 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Malaque Rolando Rero |
|
----------------------
Before: |
Deputy District Judge Chainrai |
Date: |
11 November 2010 at 2.58 pm |
Present: |
Ms D Crebbin, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Samson Hung, instructed by Messrs Cheung, Chan & Chung, for the Defendant |
Offence: |
(2) Criminal damage (刑事損壞) |
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
1. The defendant has been convicted on his own plea of one count of criminal damage, contrary to section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. Facts admitted by the defendant in respect of the charge is that at about 9 pm on the day in question, he interfered with the iron gate of the flat with a pair of bolt cutters, and there was damage caused to the locks of the door and the iron gate, and the windows were broken.
2. I am told by the prosecution that the cost of repairing that damage has been $500, and the defendant has already repaired the damage that he caused.
3. Counsel submits that he has pleaded guilty to the charge which is indication of his remorse. He has previous convictions, one of which is similar in 2007, at which time he was fined and ordered to pay compensation.
4. Counsel submits that the incident occurred as a result of a dispute between the defendant and two tenants of the premises, Mr Mamum and Mr Khaler, who were in arrears of rent and the defendant’s wife was to collect the arrears but they had not paid the rent, and an argument between them was as a result of their non-payment, and there was an argument, and it is because of his anger towards them the defendant committed the present offence.
5. I have considered the appropriate sentence. In my view, this is not the most serious of criminal-damage offences. The defendant has repaired the damage which is reflective of his remorse as is his plea today. I shall deal with the matter by way of a fine. But for the burglary charge, this matter would have been dealt with in the magistrates’ court. The defendant will be fined $2,000.
|
Deputy District Judge Chainrai |
|