HKSAR v. Liang Yi

DCCC1262/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1262 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

Before:   Deputy District Judge A. Wong

Date:     10 February 2009 at 10.58 am

Offence:  Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

Reasons for Sentence

1. There are two defendants in this case.  They each pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, for which they were jointly charged.  In sentencing, I take into account the whole circumstances of the case including its nature and facts, personal background of the two defendants and mitigation put forward on their behalf.  I have also had regard to sentencing precedents.

2. The facts of the case are simple.  It took place in Po Lin Monastery in Lantau Island.  The Monastery opens to the public from 10 am until 6 pm every day.  In the Monastery, there is a Tian Tan Buddha statue.  Two wooden boxes for donations are placed at the stairwell of the stairs leading to the statue.  At the base of the statue are an exhibition hall and a tuck shop.

3. At 7.15 pm, in the evening on 30 November 2008, the gates of the Monastery were already closed.  The two defendants, however, were found acting suspiciously at the area outside the tuck shop and the exhibition hall.  D1 was squatting down, moving slowly outside the tuck shop.  D2 appeared to be acting as a lookout outside the exhibition hall opposite the tuck shop.  D1 was carrying a nylon bag containing a pair of scissors, a can of glue, a painting brush and a roll of string.

4. Eventually they were arrested.  Although under caution they denied any illegal intent, today they pleaded guilty to the offence of burglary for having entered part of the building in question as trespassers with the intent to steal therein.  Upon being asked, each of them expressly told the court that at the material time they had the intent to steal.

5. Both defendants are first offenders.  They came from Guilin. 

6. D1 is aged 30.  He received education up to upper secondary level.  The court was told that he was running a peacock farm.  In mitigation, defence counsel said that if the defendant was imprisoned he would suffer great loss financially.  Both parents of the D1 are beyond 60 years of age.  The defendant wishes to be able to return home as soon as possible to look after his parents and his peacock farm.

7. D2 is aged 35.  He received education up to lower secondary level.  He was unemployed at the time of the offence.  His parents are also over 60 years of age and his grandmother is over 90 years of age.  His fiancée is now pregnant for about 2 months.

8. This is a case of burglary in non-domestic premises.  In all the circumstances, a starting point of 2½ years is, in my view, appropriate.  The defendants both pleaded guilty.  They are entitled to a one-third discount.  Having considered the whole circumstances including mitigation submission, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount each defendant should be entitled to.

9. Based on the matters aforesaid, I sentence both defendants to 20 months' imprisonment.