HKSAR V Chan Sing Wai

DCCC 219/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 219 OF 2009

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy District Judge Dufton in Court

Date of Sentence: 14 August 2009

Mr Malcolm Nunns counsel on fiat for the prosecution

Miss Athena Wang assigned by DLA for the defendant

Charge: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of burglary with intent to steal, contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and 11(4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in the verdict delivered earlier today.  Briefly in the evening of the 9th September last year the defendant was seen inside Room 5001, LG5 Floor, of the Administrative Block of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, access to which was controlled by combination locks.  At the time the defendant was masquerading as a member of the staff of the university by wearing a windbreaker type jacket, which was only used by the Facility Management Office Department of the University.

3.The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is two years and six months imprisonment (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215).

4.The defendant is not a first offender.  In my view he is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender in offences of dishonesty, having nine convictions for burglary and convictions for other offences of dishonesty.  Previous sentences have clearly had no deterrent effect on the defendant (see HKSAR v CHAN Pui-chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830).  I am satisfied the proper starting point is to be increased to three years imprisonment.

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Wang and the effect that a prison sentence will have on his young family.  Regrettably they will have seen very little of their father having been in and out of prison since 2001. Whilst I sympathise with a family placed in this situation this is not a ground to reduce the sentence.  The defendant is sentenced to three years imprisonment.