HKSAR v. Lee Chi-man

DCCC955/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 955 OF 2009

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

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

Before:   H H Judge Tallentire

Date:     22 October 2009 at 10.32 am

Offence:  Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance Cap.210.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.  The brief facts were as follows.

2.PW1, PW2 and PW3 were members of staff of S F Express Hong Kong Limited situated at Flat B, 1st Floor, No. 1F, Kimberly Street, Tsim Sha Tsui.  At around 5.30 pm on 25 July last PW1 put $9,494 into her drawer, locked it and left.  PW1 returned to the office at around 9.55 am on 27 July to find the door prised open and the cash missing.  CCTV showed that you, an ex-employee, had entered PW1’s room at around 4.04 pm on 26 July and left after five minutes.  PW3 had met and greeted you at around 3.45 pm that day near the building. 

3.You were arrested on 1 August last and admitted to going into the office to look for cash, stealing the money and spending it.  You said at the time you were in debt. 

4.You are a man of hitherto clear record.  On the day of your plea I adjourned the case until today for the preparation of a Probation Officer’s Background Report and report as to your suitability for detention centre, though given your age and the nature of the offence I must say that detention centre was always a remote possibility.  Those reports are before me today and I understand that you agree the contents.  I have noted that you are found suitable for detention centre and that is recommended. 

5.Mr Wong on your behalf entered mitigation and produced various letters of support from yourself, your family, two previous employers and a previous school.  In addition, your present girlfriend also wrote to me.  I have taken the contents of those letters fully into account when deciding sentence.  Mr Wong stressed the rather complicated domestic history of the family and your lack of academic qualifications.  Whilst you achieved little academically at school I understand that you did excel at sport, particularly football.  Also you managed to keep away from criminal activity and dubious characters.  He told me that this offence was committed on impulse and caused by financial difficulties by your borrowing $60,000 to assist a previous girlfriend to attend university. 

6.I was told that despite Mr Wong’s advice you yourself hoped that I would make a probation order.  That is a forlorn hope and totally unrealistic given the serious nature of the present offence.  I am told that your sister intends to pay the compensation.

7.I turn now to the sentence.  Burglary, as you know, is a very serious offence.  In this case there is an aggravating feature in that it was committed against your previous employer.  However, I do accept and take into account that the family is willing to pay compensation.  In this case there are points of mitigation:  your relative youth, your clear record and from the moment of arrest you were entirely co-operative with the police.  That is to your credit.  The offer of compensation is also a point of mitigation.  I have before me a very comprehensive Probation Officer’s Report.  Generally that report is favourable.  From that report I deduced that you are not by nature a criminal and it is my feeling that you will not offend again. 

8.I do also note that you had a rather chaotic upbringing in terms of the structure of the family.  I accept that the offence itself was impulsive.  It was not pre-planned.  There is also some mitigation that the reason that you committed the offence was hardship brought about not by addiction to gambling or to drugs, as so often is the case, but in an effort to help your girlfriend to attend university.  Looking back, this was a foolish decision given your lack of resources.  The sum you raised was clearly beyond your means.  That shows a lack of discretion on your part. 

9.As I said, there are many mitigating factors in this case.  Taking all matters into account I have decided the correct sentence is one of imprisonment, not detention centre.  The usual and well established starting point for a commercial burglary such as this is one of 30 months’ imprisonment.  However, given the mitigating circumstances I have decided to take a lower starting point. 

10.Stand up, please.  The starting point I take in this case is one of 21 months.  That is reduced by one-third for your plea of guilty.  You will therefore go to prison for a period of 14 months and there will be a payment to the victim of compensation of $9,494.