HKSAR v. Lo Lap Yin

DCCC 401/2020

[2021] HKDC 326

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 401 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Lo pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The particulars are that he, on 11 March 2020, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Shop No 149, 1^st Floor, New Capital Computer Building, Capital Building, Nos 85-95 Un Chau Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, stole therein one box of “SAMSUNG” mobile phone.

Facts admitted by Mr Lo

2.At about noon time on day of offence, the owner of the subject shop Cheng returned to the premises with a view to opening for business.  He found the glass door was prized open and a boxed “Samsung” mobile phone previously placed on the display rack has been stolen.  He later found an empty box resembling part of the stolen property outside a nearby shop.  CCTV captured a masked man wearing a jacket and white shoes with red shoelaces opened the subject shop door with an object; he then extended his upper body into the shop and took away an item; this man discarded something in the hallway before leaving.  Another part of the CCTV footage also featured Mr Lo wearing the same outfit as described above walked past the subject shop.

3.On the next day, Mr Lo was seen by patrolling police in Sham Shui Po wearing the same outfit as before.  He was intercepted.  Under caution, he said he had sold the mobile phone for $400 somewhere in Mong Kok.  Upon arrest and further caution, he said he stole it because he had run out of money.  At the time of arrest, Mr Lo had cash of $413 on him.

4.Back at the station, under video recording, Mr Lo said under caution that sometime between 10 and 11 am on the day of offence, he prised open the glass door with a stick and stole the mobile phone in a box; he then discarded the box outside the shop and sold the mobile phone in Mong Kok for $400.

Criminal record

5.Mr Lo has 19 previous convictions 2 of which are similar and 7 others are also Theft Ordinance offences.

Antecedents

6.Mr Lo is aged 27 (26 at the time of the offence), educated to F1 level, and was a car mechanic before arrest.  He is single and his family members include his parents and three siblings.  Before arrest, he lived in Sham Shui Po.

Mitigation

7.Mr Victor Ho of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Lo.

8.The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

9.Mr Lo pleaded guilty and is entitled to have one-third discount off the usual sentence for burglary of non-domestic premises which is one of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment.  Mr Lo committed the offence in the morning when most shops were not yet opened for business thus avoiding any confrontation with others.  Mr Lo did not use heavy equipment to gain entry.  He walked past the shopping mall to commit the offence.  The mode of commission was neither professional nor sophisticated.  He fully cooperated with the police.

10.Mr Lo has received F1 education.  He has worked in a garage as a car mechanic earning an average of $50,000 per month before arrest.  He was living with his family members.  His parents both work.  His elder sister is a waitress. The loss to the shop was only a mobile phone valued at $1,700.

11.Mr Ho asked for a lenient sentence on the ground of absence of aggravating features.

Sentence

12.Burglary is a serious offence.  The usual sentence for a non-domestic burglary is 2 ½ years’ imprisonment.

13.Mr Lo has a dreadful criminal record including three previous convictions for Robbery or Attempted robbery for which he was sentenced to a total sentence of 6 years in 2014.  He was released from prison after serving term for dissimilar matters only a few months before the present offence. Obviously, he has not learned any lesson from the time in prison.  For additional deterrence and for protection of the community, I shall add 3 months to the starting point.

14.The resulting final starting point is therefore 33 months.  For pleading guilty in good time, Mr Lo shall get the full 1/3 discount.  I can discern no other mitigating factors of sufficient weight to warrant any further discount.

(Mr Lo, please stand)

15.The sentence for Mr Lo is 22 months’ imprisonment.  Lastly, since Mr Lo agreed that the cash of $413 found on him at the time of arrest may be used to compensate the victim of the burglary, I make a compensation order under section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, that that sum of money be transferred to the victim Cheng in partial compensation for his loss.