HKSAR v. Lai Wai Tak
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 970/2024 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 21 July 2025.
1. The Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of burglary of the same shop on 2 different days:-
Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 970/2024 [2025] HKDC 1250 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 970 OF 2024 --------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE -------------------------------------- 1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of burglary of the same shop on 2 different days:-
2.The premises was a food company, every day at about 3 am, vegetables would be delivered to the entrance of the shop. 3.PW1 was the person in charge of the shop. When he left the shop, he pulled the roller shutter down, but did not lock the shutter as it did not work. 4.On 6 June 2024, PW1 was informed by his colleague that $2,000 in metal container and the red bucket had gone missing. 5.CCTV captured the Defendant lifting the roller shutter at 22:08:49 and left the shop at 22:09:33. 6.As to Charge 2, PW1 did not leave any cash inside the shop and did not lock the roller shutter. At about 10:53 pm, the police found the Defendant was wandering outside the shop before lifting the roller shutter and entered the shop. Ten seconds later, the Defendant left the shop and was subsequently arrested by the police. 7.Under caution, the Defendant said that he delivered vegetables to the shop and knew the roller shutter was unlocked, he went in to steal in both occasions. Criminal record 8.The Defendant has 4 criminal convictions between 1999 to 2006. None of them are related to the present charges. Mitigation/Background 9.The Defendant is 53 years of age. His wife and daughter[1] are both living in China. His wife suffered from depression since his detention for the present offences. 10.The Defendant lives with his parents[2] in a public housing estate. They are in poor health. 11.The whole family rely on the Defendant for financial support. 12.He was previously a fireman, but was injured in a car accident in 2012. As a result of which, he suffered from vertebrae dislocation and was unable to carry out heavy duty work. 13.He then has his early retirement in 2014. 14.He has been awarded for Certificate of Commendation on two occasions:-
15.He also joined the 深水埗關愛隊 set up by the government. In 2008, he donated $110,000 to the charity group in the Sichuan earthquake incident. 16.At the time of committing the present offences, he was unemployed. He was previously a delivery worker earning about $20,000 per month and worked in the supermarket as a part time worker earning $15,000 per month. 17.In March, 2024, he was diagnosed to have a benign tumor in his brain. There was an operation in November 2024 to remove the tumor. He has recovered from the operation. 18.The Defendant’s last conviction was in 2006. Sentence 19.This is a non-domestic premises burglary, the usual sentence is 30 months. I take 30 months as the starting point, given 1/3 discount, the sentences for each charge comes down to 20 months. 20.In the case of HKSAR v Lau Hiu Man[3], the appellant re-entered the same unit to steal. The Court said that :-
21.As such, in arriving a just and proper sentence to reflect the culpability of the offences, I order 4 months from Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1 as the owner did not suffer any financial lost in Charge 2. 22.The final sentence is one of 24 months’ imprisonment[4]. Further deduction? 23.I notice in mitigation that the Defendant has received 2 commendations during his services in the Fire Services Department. He also has participated in charity works. But there is no documents to support his claim. As such, I do not attach weight to this assertion and the Defendant is not entitled to any further deduction. Order 24.The Defendant is ordered to be served a period of 24 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment