HKSAR v. Leung Sui Chiu

Case No.DCCC 624/2009

Court

District Court

Date23 Jul 2009

Judge—

Case Document

100%

DCCC 624/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 624 OF 2009

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	LEUNG Sui-chiu

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

Before:

Her Honour Judge M. Yuen in Court

Date:

23 July 2009

Present:

Mr. Alvin CHUI, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr. Arthur CHAN of Messrs Rowland Chow, Chan & Co. assigned by D.L.A., for the defendant

Offence:

Burglary（入屋犯法罪）

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant pleaded guilty before me to 1 count of burglary. The events happened on 14 May 2009. He was seen tempering with the window of a unit on the ground floor of a residential block in Tai Po. The matter was reported to the police. The police arrived shortly afterwards and arrested the defendant. At the time of his arrest the defendant was found in possession of items of properties he stole from the premises.

2.The sentencing tariff for burglary of a residential premises is a term of 3 years imprisonment (ref: Chan Yiu Man CA-136/1988). Current case decisions indicated persistent re-offending is an aggravating feature for which the court ought to consider escalating the starting point for sentence.

3.For his personal background, the defendant is aged 40. He is single. He has parents who are aged 71 and 81 respectively. In his mitigation it was said he committed the present offence on account of his unemployment.

4.The defendant has 5 previous convictions of burglary and various other criminal records including robbery and possession of firearm when committing robbery. He has a total of 10 previous convictions. It can be seen his serious offences were committed back in 1994, some 14 years back. This suggested the defendant has made an effort to try to turn over a new leaf. His last burglary was committed in 1985, some 24 years ago. For the fact that he has refrained from engaging in serious offences since 1994, I do not consider the need of elevating the 3 years starting point despite his 5 previous convictions of burglary.

5.Engaging in criminal offences on account of financial constraint is not a valid mitigating factor. The strongest mitigating circumstance is the defendant’s plea of guilty indicating his remorse. I adopt the 3 years starting, accord him the 1/3 discount to reflect his plea and remorse, and impose the reduced term of 2 years imprisonment instead.

	( Mary Yuen )
	District Judge