HKSAR v. Lee Ho Kong

DCCC626/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 626 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.  The particulars of the offence are that on 15 May 2009 in Hong Kong, he entered as a trespasser the 3rd floor podium of the Dragon Centre in Sham Shui Po, and he stole therein 26 rolls of electric wire and a piece of anti-static wrist strap.  The wires were 100 metres in length and valued at $20,000.

2. The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that on 15 May, at about 5.30, a technician working at the centre returned to the transmitter equipment room which is on the podium of the 3rd floor of the Dragon Centre.  The photographs submitted show that to get to this particular area of the Dragon Centre, one has to walk through some doors, through a pipe room and onto the podium where the large cupboard containing the various wiring was kept.  Construction was going on in the vicinity of this area of the Dragon Centre, and a number of the doors were left open.

3. The cupboard is a large walk-in cupboard that was used for the storage of electrical equipment.  The door at the cupboard was not open when the technician arrived, and he noticed that he could not open the door by pressing the digital lock.  The technician informed the foreman, and whilst the technician was waiting for the foreman to come, the defendant walked out of the storage cupboard.  The technician asked the defendant what he was doing, and the defendant replied that he had not stolen anything.  He walked along the corridor towards the exit and picked up a black rucksack, which is Exhibit 1, and a nylon bag, Exhibit 7. 

4. The defendant was intending to leave and the technician followed him to the exit.  The technician noticed that there was some electrical wire which looked like his company’s property inside both of the bags.  The defendant was intercepted and the police were informed.  When the police arrived, the defendant was searched and in the bags was found the property, the subject of the charge.

5. The defendant was arrested and cautioned, and under caution, he admitted that he needed money.  He said his son had died a short time previously.  He said that he intended to sell the electric wires.  He said under caution that he had gone to the Dragon Centre, looking for something to sell.  He noticed the open doors and went through them and saw the electrical wires inside the storage room, and he admitted that he intended to sell the wire.

6. The defendant has a number of previous convictions.  He has 17 previous court appearances.  Many of those offences are for offences of dishonesty, and on 12 September in 2008 for going equipped for stealing, he was sent to prison for 6 months.  I am told that this offence was committed not long after he had been released from prison.

7. The defendant is 30 years of age and he comes from Hong Kong.  His parents are in their 50s and both working.  He has an elder brother who is mentally retarded and a married sister.  He has had a long-term relationship with his girlfriend, and by that relationship, there were two children: a daughter aged 5 and a son who died in February of 2009.  I am told that the defendant was a delivery worker but found it difficult to find work once he came out of prison.  I am told that his wife is currently in the drug addiction treatment centre and his daughter is being looked after by foster parents.

8. I am told that the reason he wanted to raise some money was to buy his daughter a present.  It was urged upon me in mitigation that there was no forced entry to the premises or the door to open, and that the offence was opportunistic.  But it seems to me from the facts that he created his own opportunities.  I also note that in September of 2008, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 months for ill treatment of his daughter. 

9. The only mitigation really in this case is the fact that he has pleaded guilty.  The normal starting point for an offence of this kind is one of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.  I accept there was no forced entry and I accept that the doors leading to where the stolen property was were open.  However, the defendant is a person with 17 previous convictions, many of which are for offences of dishonesty.  The real question I have asked myself is whether or not the usual sentence should be increased because he is a recidivist.

10. However, taking into account all the factors that have been urged upon me, I adopt a starting point of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.  I give him credit for his guilty plea and I reduce that by one-third.  The defendant will go to prison for 20 months.