HKSAR v. Man Kik Shu

DCCC1235/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1235 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of Burglary.  He has admitted the facts and I have convicted him of that offence.

2. The offence took place on 15 March 2009 at the Phohoa restaurant in Causeway Bay.  The defendant was formerly a cook at that restaurant from November 2008 to February 2009.  In the morning of 15 March one of the restaurant workers found that the cashier counter was unlocked and found that cash of $1,680 in one of the drawers was missing and also some coins totalling about $1,000 were also missing. 

3. The aluminium sheet of the metal gate at the rear entrance of the restaurant was found to be broken and eight fingerprints were lifted from the metal box and they were found to match that of the defendant. 

4. The defendant was arrested for the offence in September 2009.  He admitted, under caution, he had entered the restaurant and stolen a few thousand dollars. 

5. The defendant is a 21-year-old man.  He has one previous conviction for theft on 31 December 2008.  Because of the defendant’s fairly young age and the fact that he only had one previous conviction, I obtained a report on the defendant’s background.  The report showed that the defendant was brought up in a single parent family in China resulting out of his parents divorce.  He was under the care of his paternal grandmother who adopted lenient child supervision.  He had little interest in study and dropped out from his secondary study. 

6. His mother remarried a Hong Kong resident in 1999 and the defendant came to reside in Hong Kong in 2004 originally helping out in the stepfather’s hair salon.  The defendant, although in employment, borrowed a lot of money to fund his lifestyle and entertainment, which led to his family leaving their home because of the creditors approaching them. 

7. The defendant had not lived at home since then and would engage in casual employment such as working in cafes and returning to Shenzhen and living in cheap accommodation.  He was reduced to, at times, sleeping in the park or staying inside the cafes overnight.  At the time of the offence he said that he had been without money and hungry for two days. 

8. Now, the defendant had promised to the supervising officer to find a stable job and he had shown remorse.  The conclusion of the officer was that if the defendant continues living alone without family support and supervision the prospect of his future rehabilitation would not be optimistic. 

9. The defendant has pleaded guilty to a burglary in a commercial premises.  The normal starting point for sentence would be 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant committed the burglary at a time when he knew nobody would be there.

10. In sentencing this defendant I do bear in mind that he is comparatively young and fell outside, unfortunately, going to a training centre which may be a good option for him, which leave the only realistic option for sentencing the defendant to be one of a term of imprisonment.  I take into account his plea of guilty; his remorse; his young age and the fact that he resorted to these crimes to get easy money. 

11. Taking all those factors into consideration I will adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment for this defendant and I will reduce that by one-third for his plea of guilty, that is 9 months reduction, to 18 months’ imprisonment so the sentence will be 18 months’ imprisonment.