HKSAR v. Ho Ying Hung

DCCC539/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 539 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.You have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary. It is not disputed that the premises you burgled was a non-domestic premises. You pleaded guilty and admitted the facts.

2.The facts are simple. On the day of the offence, you were intercepted by police officers. Tools were found inside the bag that you were carrying. Upon interrogation you admitted that you had been stealing. Under caution you admitted that the drill and sanders found in the bag were stolen by you from the shop named in the charge at around 4 o’clock.

3.In relation to previous convictions, you have 27 items in your criminal record. The last one was for theft in 2006. Three convictions are directly similar to the charge in this case, the last burglary conviction being in the year 2005, when you were sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment in the District Court. You can be regarded as a repeated offender.

4.I was told in mitigation that you had been working as a chef since your last release from prison, in the staff canteen of HSBC, up to February this year. It was submitted to me that despite the previous convictions, after the offence in 2006, you wanted to turn a new leaf and you did manage to work until February 2010. You had managed to stay on the right side of the law for some 4 years.

5.Miss Cheong, on your behalf, submitted that at the time of the offence the shop was unattended; that it was an opportunistic crime committed by you out of momentary greed.

6.I am mindful of the situation that for opportunistic crimes, it is possible to have more flexibility in the sentencing in the case of burglary. Miss Cheong, however, did not refer me to any cases, nor did she actually make further submission on that. Nevertheless, Miss Cheong pointed out that you are remorseful for what you had done and that you had admitted to the matter without wasting anyone’s time from the very beginning.

Sentencing Authorities

7.The proper starting point in the case of burglary of non‑domestic premises in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence

8.I have taken into consideration that, from the facts, this seemed to have been an opportunistic crime. I have also noted that the defendant had made a full confession upon his arrest. There are no other aggravating factors in this case apart from the fact that the defendant is a repeated offender. I note, however, that his last conviction was in 2006, and the last burglary conviction was in 2005.

9.As I mentioned before, he had managed to stay on the right side of the law for around 4 years, when he succumbed to momentary greed and committed the present offence.

10.Bearing in mind those circumstances, I find that a starting point of 33 months' imprisonment is appropriate. Granting him the full one-third discount, I will sentence the defendant to 22 months' imprisonment.