HKSAR v. Leung Ka-man
|
DCCC 432/2015 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 432 OF 2015 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charges 1.The defendant pleads guilty to 19 charges of completed burglary (Charges 1 – 11, 13 – 16, 18 – 21) and 2 charges of attempted burglary (Charges 12 and 17). Facts 2.The 21 instances of burglaries took place between 5 January and 10 March 2015. Eight charges (Charges 1, 2, 4, 8, 18 – 21) involved non-residential premises whereas the other thirteen charges involved residential premises on the Kowloon side. Property stolen included computers, cameras, video-recorders, Hi-Fi components, mobile phones, watches, rings, and cash. Each set of premises had been secured before the burglary. There were either fingerprints or DNA traits lifted of the Defendant at the premises, or CCTV footages capturing the image of the Defendant’s entry into the premises. There were prising marks on the doors and the locks were broken by force. 3.The attempted burglary under Charge 12 had not completed as the security alarm sounded after the combination lock on the exterior wall of the premises was removed and the door prised. There was no property lost. 4.The attempted burglary under Charge 17 had not completed as the occupier of the premises was awoken by a bang of the door and the dogs’ barking. He found a game card wedged between the wooden door and metal gate, a piece of glass on the gate being removed and prised marks on the metal gate. There was no property lost. 5.The Defendant was arrested in the course of the burglary under Charge 21. He admitted to the police all 21 burglaries. 6.The total value of stolen property under all charges was over $355,000. No property was recovered except for the notebook computer, the camera, the small amounts of cash under Charge 6 and the camera under Charge 21. The total cost of repair was close to $40,000. Mitigation 7.The Defendant is 31 years of age. He is an accredited electrician with an average income of $13,000 per month. He lives with his parents and siblings, who are gainfully employed. His mother is suspected to have certain physical and psychiatric illnesses. Since late 2014 onwards, he had had little work. The idleness had him indulged in the consumption of ketamine and Ice. He committed the burglaries to finance his addiction. 8.He had 6 court cases resulting in, among others, 2 convictions for theft in 2003 and 2009 respectively. He has no previous records for burglary. There is no call for a more deterrent sentence based on his criminal record. 9.There are 3 mitigating letters, from himself, his mother, and his previous employer respectively. Sentencing guidelines 10.A first-time burglar of residential premises can expect 3 years’ imprisonment without aggravating factors (Attorney General v Lui Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215). 11.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, the Court of Appeal has stated that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises would be 2 ½ years’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age. Sentencing this defendant 12.For each of the 11 completed burglaries on residential premises (Charges 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 16), I take a starting point of 3 years. I reduce it by one-third for his plea of guilty. The sentence is 2 years. 13.For each of the 2 attempted burglaries on residential premises (Charges 12 and 17), I take a starting point of 18 months. I reduce it by one-third for his plea of guilty. The sentence is 12 months. 14.For each of the 8 completed burglaries on non-residential premises (Charges 1, 2, 4, 8, 18 – 21), I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months. I reduce it by one-third for his plea of guilty. The sentence is 20 months. 15.By totality, I make the following adjustments:
16.The overall sentence is 4 years and 8 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment