HKSAR v. Tang Kin Keung

DCCC33/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 33 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 20 October 2009, together with an unknown person, he committed a burglary at the On Lo Yuen Chi Ching Temple on the 2nd Floor of 240 Tung Chau Street in Sham Shui Po.

3.The facts disclosed that the burglary was discovered at 3 am in the morning of 21 October. The person in charge of the temple learned that the temple had been burgled. When he returned to the temple, he found that the wooden door and iron gate had been prised open. The donation box of the temple had been damaged. Fortunately, there was no money inside the donation box. A crowbar was found inside the temple. CCTV cameras in the temple captured two culprits entering the temple, prising open the donation box at about 11.40 the previous evening.

4.The defendant was arrested and in a video-recorded interview he admitted that he had met a friend that afternoon and they had agreed to burgle the temple. He had brought a crowbar and before entering the temple his accomplice had used some paints to paint the lens of the CCTV cameras at the staircase of the 2nd floor. The crowbar was used to prise the doors of the donation box inside the temple. The alarm was activated and they left empty handed. Both he and his accomplice wore gloves for committing the offence.

5.The defendant has got 16 previous convictions. When he was last before the court it was in September 2007 with three offences of burglary. In respect of those three offences he was sent to prison for a total of 30 months. He has a number of convictions prior to that. Many of them are drug-related offences.

6.In mitigation, I was told that the defendant is 52 years of age. He was born and educated in Hong Kong, being educated to primary school level. He was divorced in 2009 and lives on public assistance. I am told that in March 2009 he suffered a stroke and this left him with disability in his left hand and left foot, and his mobility in those is about 50 per cent. In mitigation, I was told that because of his disability he didn’t play a major role in the burglary. He acted as a lookout. I am told that his father died in 2004 and because of his father’s death he decided to quit drugs and he joined a voluntary organisation during which two to three times a week he shares his experiences with teenagers to help them avoid drug activities. I am told also that as part of this organisation they arrange for him to clean the homes of elderly persons. A Miss Nicole Chau(?) from the organisation has attended court today and confirmed that the defendant has regularly attended the organisation gatherings from January 2009 to December 2009.

7.I am told that the effect of his divorce and his health condition has led to mental depression for which he is receiving medical attention. He requires medication on a daily basis and reports to the doctor on a regular basis. I am told that he also suffers from asthma and diabetes.

8.The defendant is well aware of the usual sentence for offences of this kind. He was released from prison in January 2009, having served a 30 month sentence for three offences of burglary. Unfortunately, the fact that he has ceased taking drugs has not stopped him committing criminal offences, nor has his association with this organisation, the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention in Shek Kip Mei. I am told that he attended regularly at the association’s meetings for most of last year, yet he commits this offence of burglary in October 2009, notwithstanding his health condition.

9.The burglary itself was pre-planned. They used a crowbar. They were wearing gloves. Paint was put on the CCTV lens. This was not a casual burglary. Given his record, I am minded to consider an increase in the usual starting point for this particular offence.

10.Having heard what has been said in mitigation, however, I am minded to adopt the usual starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment. He will get credit for his guilty plea so he will serve a sentence of 20 months for this offence.