HKSAR v. Chan Man Leung and Another
|
DCCC318/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 318 OF 2010 --------------------
--------------------
------------------------------ Reasons for Sentence ------------------------------ 1.Both defendants pleaded guilty to a joint charge of burglary which took place at about midnight on 20 February 2010, at a snack shop situated at the Ground Floor of No. 177 Wan Chai Road in Hong Kong. 2.From the facts admitted by the defendants, it is apparent that when they were caught by the police they were in the course of perpetrating the crime of burglary. They were found inside this snack shop with a number of tools such as screwdrivers, pliers, labourers gloves, etc., which were apparently being used for the commission of the burglary, lying on the floor near them. 3.Both defendant admitted to the police, under caution, they broke into the snack shop with a view to stealing from the shop. Both defendants have lengthy conviction history. 4.Out of the two, the 1st defendant has the worse record. He has been convicted on 14 previous occasions, of which six of those occasions involved conviction for a number of burglaries. His last conviction was on 17 January 2008, also for burglary, for which he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. 5.On the other hand, the 2nd defendant appears to have a slightly better criminal record. He has been convicted on eight previous convictions involving a number of different offences, including burglaries, handling stolen goods, robbery, dangerous drugs offences. His last conviction was for handling stolen goods, and he was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment on 13 March 2009. 6.Against their criminal records it is no wonder that Mr Wu, on their behalf, conceded that he had an uphill task to do in mitigating on their behalf. Nonetheless, Mr Wu, on behalf of both defendants, asked this court to give his clients the best possible consideration in the light of their full and frank admission to the police at the scene when they were arrested, the fact that there was no actual loss suffered by the victim, and most importantly their pleas of guilty. 7.I have carefully considered Mr Wu’s submissions about the defendants’ background.Suffice to say that, as Mr Wu quite rightly pointed out, that as far as the two defendants are concerned the only mitigation seems to be their pleas of guilty. It is well established that for burglaries committed on non-domestic premises the usual starting point is an imprisonment for 2½ years. 8.As far as the 1st defendant is concerned, his criminal record is appalling. He has a number of previous convictions for burglary. I take the view that in the light of his bad record this court is justified to take a slightly higher starting point than the usual 2½ years. He was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for his last conviction for burglary. On the face of it, if it was a plea of guilty in relation to burglary committed on domestic premises, it would be a rather lenient sentence. But I do not know much about his last conviction, and I do not wish to surmise on what actually happened when he received sentence in January 2008. I am only prepared to consider as far as this offence is concerned this is about the seventh time the 1st defendant is convicted of burglary. It requires a deterrent sentence. 9.Therefore, instead of taking the usual 2½ years as starting point I take 3 years as the starting point for D1. I give the 1st defendant one-third discount for his plea of guilty. In the absence of any other mitigating circumstances, his sentence therefore stands at one of 2 years' imprisonment. 10.D2’s criminal record is slightly better. The most significant difference is that he has only been convicted of burglary once in the past. I therefore do not find any justification in D2’s case to adopt a higher starting point. As a result, I take 2½ years as the correct starting point and reduce it by one-third to reflect D2’s plea of guilty. Again I find no other mitigating circumstances in D2’s case, apart from his plea of guilty. 11.D2 is therefore convicted and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.
|