HKSAR v. Lai Mei Lun

DCCC 350/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 350 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.Lai Mei Lun you have pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary of non-domestic premises in Lok Ma Chau, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by you today.  The premises burgled are described as a cage which was placed by Mr Wong Ha Ping and Mr Wong Sze Hoi on land in Lok Ma Chau, part of which they had rented.   The photographs submitted to court show the land was surrounded by two-meter high zinc boards with a main gate on which notices were posted prohibiting unauthorized entry.  The cage was used like a warehouse for storage and was secured with a padlock and chain.  In February this year you burgled the cage on three separate days.  

Charge 1

3.In the early hours of 20 February you were seen on CCTV entering the main gate and cutting open the padlock of the cage with a pair of pliers. You entered the cage and stole thirty-two boxes of skin care products; eighteen bottles of wine and forty-eight boxes of thermometers.  The total value of the stolen property was $22,900.

Charge 2

4.In the early hours of 23 February you were seen on CCTV entering the main gate and pulling up the iron mesh of the cage.  You then reached into the cage and stole eighteen cans of milk powder valued at $3,960.

Charge 3

5.In the early hours of 25 February you again used a pair of pliers to cut open the padlock of the cage.  You stole sixty-eight boxes of skin care valued at $9,280.  When you were leaving the cage with the stolen goods you were intercepted and arrested by the police, who found in your possession the pliers; a torch and a pair of gloves. 

6.Under caution you admitted burgling the cage by cutting the padlock with the pliers and stealing the sixty-eight boxes of skin care; burgling the cage on two earlier occasions and that you returned to the cage to steal because no one was there at night making it easy for you to steal. 

Mitigation

7.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Lau as particularised in his written skeleton submission including that you acted alone and that you fully cooperated with the police.

Starting point

8.The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. 

9.Although described as a cage the photographs make clear the cage was used like a warehouse for storage of relatively valuable goods.  I am satisfied a starting point of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate for each offence. 

10.Although you have a poor criminal record taking into account your only convictions for burglary were in 1996 and your last conviction for dishonesty was in November 2013, which is your only conviction for dishonesty since 2008, I do not enhance the starting point by reason of your repeated offending. 

11.Giving you full credit for your pleas of guilty reduces the sentence on each charge to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

12.Taking into account all the circumstances of the three burglaries including that the same premises were burgled; goods to a total value of $36,140 were stolen; only the goods from the last burglary valued at $9,280 were recovered; and that you went equipped for breaking in by carrying with you a pair of pliers, I am satisfied a total sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

Sentence

13.You are convicted and sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charge 1; and

Charge 3 – 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 6 months consecutive and 14 months concurrent to charges 1 & 2.

14.The total sentence to be served by you is 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, which I am satisfied properly reflects your criminality on the three charges.