|
DCCC12/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Wong Ka Lun, Tommy (D1) |
|
| |
Tai Hok Kwan (D2) |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
5 May 2010 at 9.53 am |
| Present: |
Mr Michael Tsang, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Adonis Cheung, instructed by Messrs Au Yeung, Cheng, Ho & Tin, for the 1st Defendant
Mr Choy Ki, instructed by Messrs Alfred Lam, Keung & Ko, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant |
| Offence: |
Attempted Burglary (企圖入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted burglary.
2. The particulars of the offence are that on 4 November 2009, they attempted to enter as trespassers part of a building known as the Cheerful Garden Restaurant, Ground Floor, Rear Lane, No. 33 Tso Kung Square, Tsuen Wan, with intent to steal therein.
3. The facts admitted by both defendants disclose that at 4.42 am on 4 November two police officers were patrolling along Sha Tsui Road in Tsuen Wan. They heard certain noises and entered the rear lane of Tso Kung Square. They saw the two defendants, the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant, holding a crowbar and a screwdriver, respectively. They were prising open the rear door of the Cheerful Garden Restaurant. The officers revealed their identities and the defendants dropped the implements they were holding. They were both arrested and they admitted that they were prising open the rear door of the restaurant and intended to enter in order to steal.
4. D1 admitted that he brought the crowbar, the screwdriver and a nylon bag from his home. The 1st defendant under caution said that he had a son, aged 2, and he had no money to buy milk powder so he came to burgle.
5. The 2nd defendant said he committed the offence out of momentary greediness. The following day was his birthday and he intended to steal money to spend on his birthday and he knew he was wrong.
6. Both defendants have clear records. The 1st defendant is 19 years of age, the 2nd defendant 18 years of age.
7. On the last occasion I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of reports. The Commissioner of Correctional Services advises in each case that the defendants are suitable for treatment in a training centre and there is a place available.
8. In respect of the 1st defendant it is said that the defendant was born the elder of two siblings in a broken family in Hong Kong. His father was engaged heavily in his work and the defendant was mainly supervised by his mother, who was a housewife. His parents split up in 2001. It says the defendant maintained a fair academic performance, but showed no obvious misbehaviour in his primaries. His academic studies dropped when he went to secondary school and after Form 3 he received vocational training at the VTC. He started work after his girlfriend gave birth to his son, who is now aged 2.
9. In respect of the 1st defendant, a number of letters have been placed before the court. The defendant, himself, in his letter states that he is very remorseful and he regrets the anxiety he has caused to his parents and his son. A letter from his father says that he is suffering from diabetes and he says that the defendant is a hard worker, he is polite and asks for leniency. Those sentiments are echoed by the mother.
10. There is also a letter from the Hong Kong Young Women’s Christian Association saying the defendant has been involved with them since November 2009 with a training programme there. He has performed well and appears to be responsible.
11. In the case of the 2nd defendant, the report comments that he was brought up in a working class family and was the only child. He was mainly taken care of by his mother and managed to behave himself at home and school during his primary studies. Without proper guidance and supervision from his parents, he became rebellious and wilful. At secondary school, his behaviour deteriorated significantly. He met dubious peers and indulged in late night activities. He dropped out of school after completing Form 3. He started working in late 2006 after being idle for several months. His work pattern was unsteady. It says the defendant’s impulsive greed landed him to present to commit the current offence. Again, detention in a training centre is recommended in his case.
12. Letters have been placed before the court from the defendant, himself, who says that he is remorseful for the offence. His father is about to retire and soon he will be the sole supporter of his family. He is now working as an electrician. A letter from the father asks for leniency. There is a letter also from the Youth Participation Program commenting on the work of the defendant. There is a letter from the social worker saying that in May of last year the defendant approached him looking for employment opportunities and he recommended the youth program to him. The 2nd defendant, when he was arrested, describes his commission of the offence being out of momentary greediness.
13. However, this was not an offence committed on impulse. The defendants went prepared to commit this offence. They had a crowbar, a screwdriver and a nylon bag. The offence was committed at 4.42 in the morning. The usual sentence for an offence of this kind is 2½ years’ imprisonment.
14. I have considered very carefully everything that has been said to the court and the contents of the two reports. In all the circumstances I have decided that each of the defendants should be detained in a training centre.
|