HKSAR v. Lam Chi Yuen

DCCC800/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.800 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged for two counts of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance Cap.210.

The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, he was convicted accordingly.

Facts

Sometime before 1509 hours on 13 April 2010, the defendant broke into the house at No.58, 5^th Street, Section K Fairview Park via the rear door and stole therein 3 necklaces with pendants, 5 rings, one piece of watch-strap and one wrist chain, the total estimated value was around $56,500.

At about 1509 hours on the same day, the defendant broke into another house at No.1, Section B of the same street. He damaged the glass door to the rear garden and the bathroom window of the property, and stole therein 95 red packets, cash of $640, 3 watches, one bag, 3 golden ornaments, one wrist chain, a pair of ear-rings, one watch-strap and 4 rings, the total estimated value was around $98,000. His act was noticed by a domestic helper working opposite No.1, who informed her employer of the incident and a report was made to the police.

Soon after the police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant after a brief chasing. All stolen properties were recovered from the defendant. No resident was present at time of the offences.

These are domestic burglary, I noted however all the stolen properties are recovered; I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge to be 33 months.

Mitigation

The defendant aged 32, married with a 5 years old daughter. He has 1 previous similar conviction record. After his release for the last offence, the defendant got a stable job and took up a diploma course; he managed to lead an honest life. To everyone’s disappointment he committed the present offences again in April.

In mitigation, the defendant said he was made redundant in 2008; since then he was only able to find part-time jobs, the family suffered great financial pressure and the relationship with his wife deteriorated because of that. His wife asked for divorce, thinking that monies can solve all the problems, he committed the present offences. During the incident, he injured his leg and required operation. The verbal medical opinion is that he would only recover about 70% and permanent disability is expected for his leg. The wife in her mitigation letter said she has forgiven the defendant and would not divorce him. All the family show their support to the defendant.

Medical report from CSD confirmed that he suffered fracture of left leg and had operation in Tuen Mun Hospital(TMH). He had also attended follow-up appointment in the Orthopaedics Unit and Physiotherapy Department of TMH as scheduled. Further information submitted by the defence that since the operation, the defendant has attended 6 to 7 follow up and the first physiotherapy treatment was only arranged on 29 September, thereafter a course of treatment would be designed for him. I consider the injury to be a serious one.

The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea. Take into account that he has suffered serious injuries to his leg and was remorseful to his wrong, I give him a further discount of 3 months.

I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor that call for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality consideration, I order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive, making a total of 25 months.

Order

Charge 1 sentenced to 19 months

Charge 2 sentenced to 19 months, 6 month consecutive with charge 1, making a total of 25 months imprisonment