HKSAR v. Chan Yee Lap

DCCC25/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of going equipped for stealing, contrary to section 27(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 1 December last year outside House No. 361 in Ho Chung New Village in Sai Kung, whilst not at his place of abode, he had with him some articles, namely a mask and a pair of gloves, for use in the course or in connection with theft.

3.The amended Summary of Facts states that at 2.50 pm on 1 December an officer was conducting anti-burglary patrol in Ho Chung New Village in Sai Kung when he spotted the defendant acting furtively outside House No. 361.  The officer stopped the defendant and searched him and found the mask and pair of gloves in the defendant’s coat.  He admitted that he was in possession of those items for committing an act of theft and he was arrested for going equipped for stealing.

4.When interviewed, he admitted that he had the mask with him so that he would be less easily identified and he picked up a pair of gloves in Sai Kung the same day for use when he was stealing.

5.The defendant has appeared before courts on 11 previous occasions.  On six of those occasions he has appeared for offences of dishonesty, including robbery and theft.  He has had a number of lengthy sentences imposed upon him in the past.

6.I was told in mitigation that the defendant is 38 years of age, he was raised in a humble family and was the youngest of five children.  His mother is in her 70s and has a broken leg.  He was married in 2007 to a lady from the mainland and she lives on the mainland still.  He was educated to Form 2 standard.  In mitigation I was told that the defendant is weak-minded and easily influenced by others. 

7.It was clear from his record that much of the defendant’s life has been spent in prison.  I was told by his counsel that he found it difficult to get employment when he was released from prison because of his bad record and low education standard.  I was told that that situation was aggravated in December 2007 when he was injured at work and he has been advised on medical grounds not to get work of a strenuous or that involves manual labour, and since that injury he has been unemployed.

8.In mitigation it was urged upon me that the defendant pleaded guilty and made a frank admission to the police when he was detained.

9.The maximum sentence for the offence which is before the court is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has a number of previous convictions, including offences of dishonesty, on his record and in this case I regard that as an aggravating feature.  There is a need to protect society from criminals like the defendant.  The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that he was outside this house in possession of a mask and gloves.

10.Taking into account all the features of the case, I have decided that a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.  The only mitigation in this case is the defendant’s guilty plea, so I reduce that sentence by the usual one-third.  I therefore sentence the defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment.