|
DCCC927/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 927 OF 2011
----------------------
----------------------
| Date:
|
4 October 2011 at 11.43 am
|
| Present:
|
Miss Lisa Go, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
|
|
|
Ms May Tam, of Solomon C Chong & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
| Offence:
|
(1) & (2) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary. The premises concerned in each of the premises is a school. The school is located at Shek Pak Street in Kwai Chung.
2. The first time the defendant entered was on 18 July at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. A police officer was patrolling outside the school when he saw somebody inside.
3. At the time of the offence the school was vacated and under the management of the Education Bureau. A property management company was engaged by the Bureau to patrol the school premises bi-weekly and it was surrounded by a 1.8 metre high metal fence with locked gates. The officer who spotted the defendant inside the school had to scale the fence in order to enter the school to carry out observations.
4. The officer saw the defendant come out of one of the rooms of the school and place a bundle of electric wires on the floor. The defendant then went back into the room and started cutting further electric wires from the wall with a pair of pliers.
5. The defendant was intercepted by the officer and searched and two screwdrivers were found in the pocket of his trousers and 11 bundles of electric wires were recovered.
6. He told the police that he had gone there to steal electric wires in order to sell them to make some money.
7. He appeared in court two days later and was granted bail.
8. Six days later, another officer was on duty in the vicinity of the school, on 26 July, and went into the school to conduct an observation.
9. The officer saw the defendant outside a room on the 2nd floor of the school with another man. The defendant was wearing a pair of gloves and using a pair of pliers to cut electric wire inside the room. The defendant then handed over the wire to the wanted person who then placed them in a black rucksack. The officer revealed his identity and stopped the defendant but the other man managed to flee. Forty-one bundles of electric wire were found in the black rucksack.
10. The defendant was arrested and gave the same explanation that he had given the week previously.
11. A security supervisor at the school confirmed that the wires were stolen from the school.
12. The defendant has 14 previous convictions but none of them are for offences of burglary, or indeed offences of dishonesty. He has had a number of drug-related offences and served lengthy periods of imprisonment for drugs matters. In 1997, for trafficking, he was sent to prison for over 5 years, and in 2003, for trafficking, he was sent to prison for 8 years.
13. I am told in mitigation that the defendant is aged 56, he was educated to Secondary level, he is single, and he lives with his 84-year-old mother.
14. Counsel on his behalf told the court that the defendant is remorseful, but I doubt that since after he was given bail for Charge 1 he goes right back and commits the same offence again.
15. The normal starting point for offences of this kind, burglary at non-domestic premises, is 2½ years’ imprisonment. However, these were vacated school premises and, given the nature of the goods that was being stolen, I propose to adopt a slightly lower starting point.
16. An aggravating feature of this case is not only does he steal property from the school, but also in the process of that causing damage and it obviously cost the authorities a lot of money to replace the stolen wiring.
17. The second offence was committed whilst on bail for the first offence and the general rule is that sentences for offences committed on bail should run consecutively.
18. The only mitigation in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty.
19. I propose to adopt a starting point of 16 months in respect of each of the offence and, having considered the question of totality, I order that 8 months of the second offence run consecutive to the first offence.
20. The defendant will go to prison therefore for 2 years.
|