HKSAR v. Xian Bolin

Case No.DCCC 33/2009

Court

District Court

Date27 Apr 2009

Judge—

Case Document

100%

DCCC33/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 33 OF 2009

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Xian Bolin

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

Before:

Deputy District Judge M. Chow

Date:

27 April 2009 at 10.56 am

Present:

Mr Simon Ng, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Martyn Richmond, instructed by Messrs Chan & Chan, assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the Defendant

Offence:

Theft (盜竊罪)

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of theft. He admitted stealing one bundle of electric wire, one pair of gloves and a pair of pliers.

2.At about 2.15 pm on 23 November 2008, PW1 heard some noises from her neighbour’s premises. She then called the police. PW3 arrived and also heard some noises coming out from the premises. He knocked on the door but there was no response. PW3 went around to the back of the premises and came across the defendant leaving the premises via the rear door holding a coil of wire. Upon seeing PW3, the defendant went back to the premises but was subdued by PW3 inside.

3.Under caution, he admitted stealing the wire in question as he found the rear door was opened and there was no one inside the premises.

4.In mitigation I was told that the defendant has a clear record, he is 44 years of age, his wife and two daughters live in China, he came to Hong Kong on a two-way permit, he has been unemployed since May last year. He hoped to find a job in Hong Kong to earn some money. On the day in question he went to the premises with a view to meet his contact person to secure a job on the site. The door was opened and he went in to steal.

5.The prosecution and the defence agreed that a telephone number written on a piece of paper was found from the defendant’s rucksack. The telephone number belonged to a Mr Sin, who was the subcontractor to the premises. The police had interviewed him but he denied employing the defendant.

6.The day in question was a Sunday. The reason why PW1 made a complaint to the police was because of the loud banging noise coming out from the site. No decoration work should be carried out on a Sunday. The prosecution suspect that the defendant was in fact working in the premises but they do not have evidence to prove such. However, the prosecution accept that the door to the premises was not prised open and the defendant entered the premises as an opportunist. In any event, the prosecution accept that he was not a trespasser to the premises.

7.In passing sentence, I have regard to the defendant’s guilty plea, the mitigation put forward before me and he has a clear record. Further, the coil of wire worth $100 and the other items were of very little value.

8.In the present circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 9 months, reduced to 6 months to reflect his guilty plea.

	M. Chow
	Deputy District Judge