HKSAR v. So Chi Ping
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 232/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The defendant (“D”) pleads guilty to a charge of attempted burglary.
Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 232/2018 [2018] HKDC 1263 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 232 OF 2018 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge and facts 1.The defendant (“D”) pleads guilty to a charge of attempted burglary. 2.Tai Wo Market (the "Market") is a wet market at Tai Wo Estate, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong, which is closed from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. every day. The Market has 4 entrances and 2 fire exits and the fire doors at the fire exits are closed 24 hours a day so that people can leave but not enter the Market through the fire doors. 3.At around 4:05 a.m. on 2 January 2018, whilst PC22252 was conducting an anti-burglary operation in the Market, he heard some noises coming out from No. 2 staircase. 4.PC22252 walked towards the staircase and spotted a male (later known as D) squatting on the ground between the 1st fire door (with lock) and the 2nd fire door (without lock) leading to the staircase. He also saw a black wire ("E1") moving up and down through the gap of the 2nd fire door to pull the push bar of the door, but with no success. 5.A silver-colour object (later known as a broken barbecue fork bent into a hook shape) ("E2") was then inserted into the gap between the ground and the 2nd fire door to pull the latch of the fire door. After a few attempts, the latch was opened, and the fire door was left ajar. 6.PC22252 then saw D peek through the glass window of the fire door. Suddenly there was sound of moving trolley inside the Market and D stepped back from the fire door. At that juncture, PC22252 notified other police officers. 7.At around 4:32 a.m. on the same day, some police officers in the Market arrived at the subject fire door and D ran down the staircase immediately. The police officers then chased after D. When D ran to the lane outside the exit of the staircase, he threw E2 on the ground. Subsequently, D was subdued by the police on the rear lane outside Tai Wo Plaza, and was identified at the scene by PC22252. D was then arrested. 8.Upon search of D, a blonde wig ("E3") was found in the front pocket of the hoodie worn by D. Besides, some clothes and shoes including a pair of shoes, a pair of trousers, a blue jacket, and a scarf (collectively as "E4'") were found in the rucksack ("E5") carried by D. 9.The police further found a black wire (E1) on the ground beside the said fire door, and a broken barbecue fork (E2) on the lane outside the staircase. 10.In a cautioned video-recorded interview, D stated, inter alia, that:
11.At all material times, D did not have any right or permission to enter the Market, but D attempted to enter the Market as a trespasser, with intent to steal therein. Mitigation 12.He is 50 years old, of F. 3 education level. His wife and son are in mainland China. He had numerous criminal convictions, including 2 burglaries, resulting in 23 months’ imprisonment from which he was released just 9 months before the present offence. His counsel does not dispute that this calls for aggravation of his present sentence. Sentencing considerations 13.In R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80, the Court of Appeal says that the proper starting point for non-domestic premises shall be 30 months’ imprisonment for a first offender of full age. Sentencing D 14.Notwithstanding the simple device used to attempt to tackle the lock and the doors, D had changed his clothing beforehand. He knew better than to continue when the police arrived at his position. I take a basic starting point of 18 months for this failed attempt to enter to steal. Given his repeat offending just 9 months after his release from prison, I add 3 months on it. After a one-third discount for his timely plea of guilty, the sentencing is 14 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment