HKSAR v. Li Chun Lam
|
DCCC154/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 154 OF 2009 ----------------------
----------------------
Reasons for Sentence
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary. 2. At the material time, PW1 and PW2 were the proprietor and waiter respectively of the Club known as “Club Ranee” (“the Club”) in Tsimshatsui, Kowloon. The Defendant had worked at the Club as a manager between September 2008 and 16 November 2008. He was dismissed on 16 November 2008. At the time of the offence, PW2 and the Defendant were living together. 3. At about 5 am on 13 December 2008, PW2 securely locked the till and the main door of the Club before leaving the premises unattended. At about 11 am on the same day, a security guard of the building in which the Club was situated saw the Defendant entering the building. The Defendant told the security guard that he wanted to use the toilet of the Club. Feeling suspicious, the security guard took another lift to the Club and saw that its door was open. The security guard later saw the Defendant leaving the building, and he then informed PW1 about the incident. 4. At about 11.30 am on the same day, PW1 told PW2 that the Club might have been burgled. While PW2 was preparing to return to the Club, he could not find the keys to the Club. At this juncture, the Defendant returned home and admitted to PW2 that he had just been to the Club. PW2 immediately returned to the Club and found that cash of $500 which had been kept in the till was missing. PW2 confirmed that he did not give the keys to the Defendant to enter the Club. A report was made to the police. The Defendant did not return home after the offence, and he was arrested on 2 January 2009. 5. During the cautioned interview, the Defendant admitted that after he was dismissed by PW1, he could not find any job. His father had just passed away during that period. He found himself with no money on the day of the offence. He then took away the keys to the Club from PW2, entered the Club and stole $500 from the till. He was well aware that, as at the date of the offence, he had no permission to enter the Club. 6. The Defendant is aged 26. He has one previous conviction of shoplifting in 2004. He left the family since the age of 18. After completing education up to a level equivalent to Form 7, he then worked as a bar manager. 7. According to the solicitor for the Defendant, the Defendant was dismissed by the Club because he was alleged by the proprietor of the Club to have stolen money, an allegation which is disputed by the Defendant. He was also aggrieved because the Club did not give him the bonus as promised and to indemnify him of the expenses incurred by him on behalf of the Club. He was desperate and was in financial difficulty, and so he committed the present offence. Further, according to the letter written by the Defendant, he was remorseful for his criminal act. 8. No matter what were the relationship and the dispute between the Defendant and the Club, it did not alter the fact that this was a burglary in a non-domestic premises. He was certainly not allowed to resort to criminal activity with a view to get back the money which he considered to be due from the Club. Further, financial hardship facing the Defendant alone is not a sufficient reason to justify a reduction in the sentence. 9. In such case, the normal starting point for a burglary in non-domestic premises is one of 2½ years, and I adopt the same starting point. Giving the Defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty, the sentence is now reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment, and this is the sentence I am imposing in the present case.
|