HKSAR v. Ma Tim Choi
|
DCCC519/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 519 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.This defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. 2.The facts of the case are very straightforward. PW1, the victim, owned a single-storey unnumbered hut in a rural part of Fanling. This hut was amongst or next to some vegetable fields. From the photographs produced by the prosecution, the hut clearly is a makeshift hut constructed from corrugated metal sheets. The photographs show that in and around it, the owner has clearly collected a lot of rubbish, but it is not an abandoned hut. 3.It is agreed that the owner did not use it as a domestic premises but as a tool shed and a storeroom. There was a door and there was a padlock but not a large, significant or strong padlock attached to the door. 4.On 10 March this year at about 5.30, the PW1 locked up the hut and left. She returned the next morning to find that the padlock had been broken and some items were missing from within the hut. She discovered a box of egg rolls missing, some electric wire, and a shoulder bag. 5.The police had stopped and intercepted the defendant not long before this with the shoulder bag containing the egg rolls and some electric wires. He told the police upon search of the bag that he had stolen them from an abandoned house nearby. He stole the egg rolls to eat for himself and he intended to sell the electric wire. 6.From the photographs, it is clear that the wire had been dismantled off walls and disconnected. This would have caused some inconvenience to the owner. 7.I have heard mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant that he did fully cooperate with the police upon his arrest. His plea of guilty today is his best mitigation. 8.He is 43 years old and single. He does have a string of theft convictions that began in January 2007. Prior to that, he had a clear record. He gave a reason for recently committing these offences. He explained that three years ago his girlfriend left him, and perhaps caused a downward spiral in his behaviour and life. 9.He has been unemployed apart from some casual work which would not have helped his financial situation. He did not apply for CSSA until recently, and just prior to this offence he was granted such an allowance. He did earn some money by scavenging around the Fanling and Sheung Shui area, looking for abandoned items of some value to sell. 10.It is submitted that this offence was not premeditated. He had arisen early that morning and gone to fetch his cart. When he came across vegetable fields and this tool shed or storeroom, he was tempted to enter it and see if there was anything worth taking. Scavenging being in his nature, he wanted to see if there were any items of value to sell. I accept he proceeded to break the padlock on this basis. 11.The factors I will take into account include the fact it was a tool shed or a storeroom and not inhabited by any person. I will also take into account the value of the items taken. 12.Normally, a 2½years’ starting point would be an appropriate sentence for a non-domestic premises burglary, where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors. 13.After considering mitigation, the facts of the case, the items stolen, photograph album of the premises inside and out, I come to the conclusion that the state of the premises here and the mitigation put forward allow me to take a slightly lower starting point. 14.I would take a starting point of 2 years. Defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea of guilty today. That discount is one of eight months. 15.Defendant, please stand up. For this offence you have pleaded guilty to, you will be sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.
|