HKSAR V Man Shun Tai

DCCC 447/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 447 OF 2010

____________

____________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________________________________

1.D1 pleads guilty to one charge of attempted burglary of domestic premises, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.Briefly, at about 7:00 p.m. on the 24th December 2009 the domestic helper of House A16, Scenic Heights, Lok Ma Chau went into the conservatory when she heard some noise from overhead and saw the defendant on the glass canopy.  When the helper put the lights on, the defendant was heard to fall to the ground breaking the glass canopy of the adjoining House A15.  A security guard, who saw the defendant injured, called an ambulance.  When the ambulance arrived the defendant fled but was later arrested when trying to catch a cross-border bus.

3.The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is three years imprisonment (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 as applied in Attorney General v LO Ching-fai [1996] 2 HKCLR 20).  I am satisfied no distinction is to be drawn by the fact this was an attempt.

4.The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, having appeared in court on ten occasions, resulting in eleven convictions, six relating to dishonesty, with the last two for burglary.  I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial for the attempted burglary is to be further increased by 6 months to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment                (see HKSAR v CHAN Pui-chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830).

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Ho, including the content of the defendant’s letter. 

6.The defendant’s plea cannot be said to be a timely plea as he absconded whilst on police bail (see paragraph 3(e) of the antecedent statement).  Although the defendant was re-arrested I do not propose to reduce the discount for his plea of guilty by reason of his absconding, in particular considering I have already increased the starting point by reason of the defendant being a persistent offender.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment.