HKSAR v. Kwok Yiu Chung and Another

DCCC1419/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1419 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The third defendant and fourth defendant were jointly charged with others for one count of attempted burglary, contrary to section 11(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance (Charge 6).

The third defendant pleaded guilty to charge 6 and admitted the facts; he was convicted accordingly on the charge.

The fourth defendant pleaded guilty to charge 6 during the prosecution case; he admitted the facts and was convicted accordingly on the charge.

Facts

At about 2:00am on 22 October 2009, D1 to D4 together with an unknown male arrived in the vicinity of Kam Chun Dumplings Restaurant (Shop 5). D1 and D2 went up to the rear door of Shop 5, D1 attempted to prize open the rear door with a crowbar. D3 and D4 acted as a lookout. D1 and D3 were arrested by police officers who were carrying out anti-burglary operation nearby. D4 was arrested at a later stage.

The charge concern non-domestic burglary, I consider the appropriate starting point to be 30 months imprisonment.

The third defendant aged 41, re-married in 2008 with one daughter. The defendant has a clear record, and a stable job worked as a driver earning $8000 to 20,000 per month. He committed the crime out of momentary greed and was very remorse for his wrong.

The third defendant would entitle to 1/3 discount for his plea. For his clear record and previous good character, I gave him a further deduction of 3 months.

The fourth defendant aged 17, with 1 previous conviction not similar and was put on probation for 12 months. He committed the present offence shortly after the expiration of the probation order. In view of his age a Detention Centre report and a Training Centre report were called for.

It revealed in the report that the defendant mother was mainland resident. Shortly after his birth, the defendant was brought to China and lived with his mother and maternal grandmother. In 2000, his mother immigrated to Hong Kong and his father passed away in 2001. In 2005, the defendant returned to Hong Kong with his siblings for family reunion. The mother was busy engaged in her work and failed to render defendant effective supervision and guidance during his crucial stage of development. The defendant became rebellious since form two, mixed up with dubious schoolmates and started to acquaint undesirable youths who had triad background. His school performance deteriorated sharply and he joined a triad society in early 2008. The defendant left school without completing form three. Out of curiosity and under bad peers’ influence, he sniffed Ketamine twice in March 2008.

After his arrest, the defendant was remanded in Pik Uk Correctional Institution on 24 Oct 2009 and granted bail on 27 Oct 2009, he seemed to have learnt a lesson from his past misdeeds. During the bail period, he cut off the linkage with his triad-related peers and ceased his nocturnal activities. Meanwhile, he engaged in gainful employment in a salon until July 2010. During his remand for the reports, he managed to behave and comply with the institutional rules and regulations.

The assessment officer stated that during the interview, the defendant adopted a polite and cooperative attitude. He had no reservation in disclosing his past misdeeds including his bad acquaintance and drug history. For the present offence he admitted his involvement and blamed himself for being greedy and ignorant of legal consequences. The mother showed great concern towards defendant, and promised to render support for the defendant’s rehabilitation. The defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre and the officer considered him more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre.

Taking into account of the background and the character of the defendant, and the recommendation of the report, I consider that a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision is beneficial to him.

I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the community and that having regard to the defendant character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of the offence, it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a period of training in a Detention Centre.

Order

The third defendant

Charge 6 sentenced to 17 months imprisonment.

The fourth defendant

Charge 6 sentenced to serve a Detention Centre order.