HKSAR V Pang Siu Kwan

DCCC 282/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 282 OF 2010

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.D1 is convicted after trial of the offence of going equipped for stealing, contrary to section 27 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210. The particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict delivered earlier this afternoon.

2.In summary D1 was found in possession of three screwdrivers, a spanner and a saw (exhibits P2-P6) when running away together with D2, who had been seen climbing down the scaffolding of Block D, Lung Tang Court, which are residential premises.  Later at the police station D1 was also found to be in possession of four tubes of glue (exhibit P7).

3.In The Queen v TSANG Wing-ming CACC 315/1989 the Court of Appeal held that whilst the nature of the equipment is a matter of consideration in a crime of this unusual and preventive nature, of more importance is the nature of the defendant.

4.The appellant in that case was found climbing scaffolding in a rear lane.  He was wearing gloves and later found in possession of a screwdriver and a small torch.  He was 28 and had already amassed nine appearances in court, most of which were for burglary.  The court in agreeing with the trial judge that the appellant was a professional burglar dismissed an appeal against sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, which was imposed after trial.

5.D1 in the present case can equally be regarded as a professional burglar.  He is 48 and has amassed 12 appearances in court resulting in seven convictions for burglary, one for attempted burglary and one for going equipped for stealing. He also has convictions for robbery and other offences. 

6.D1’s last convictions for burglary were in June 2008 when he received a total sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment.  D1 was released in November 2009 less than two months before the commission of the present offence.  D1 is without doubt a persistent offender for whom previous sentences have had no deterrent effect       (see HKSAR v CHAN Pui-chi[1999] 2 HKLRD 830). 

7.I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that a sentence of two years and six months is also appropriate.  D1 is sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment.