HKSAR v. Choi Ho Lin

DCCC1100/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1100 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary, one on 30 July 2010 where he was seen entering a commercial building and leaving with a carton box carrying notebook computer with charger and two mobile phones, total value about 4,800, the properties of which he stole from the restaurant office at the mezzanine floor in about late evening.

2.The other happened about 10 years ago on 29 August 1999 where defendant stole cash and properties from a hotel in late evening.  The waiter working there found his locker prised open with cash and properties totalling about 1,200 stolen. Fingerprints of the defendant were found there.

3.Defendant, aged 40 and has been working as a chef for different restaurants.  He is married with a daughter about 11 years old.  Defendant has four similar convictions of burglary from 1997 to 2008, the last of which made him serving 20 months of imprisonment and he was just discharged in January 2009. 

4.For burglary of non-domestic premises, it has long been established in the Court of Appeal that the proper starting point would be 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.  Given his repeated offences of the same charge, higher starting point may be adopted. 

5.In mitigation, Mrs Liang submits that as to the charge of 1999 incident, she was told by the defendant this should be a charge already left on file when he faced other charges in another occasion.  As such, a previous case file of DCCC426/2003 was called for, but there was no record, no mention at all concerning this charge in 1999.  Mr Chan for the prosecution also submits that had there been a charge left on the court’s file, the very same charge would not have been made against defendant again or at least the prosecution or the court would have such record.  As there was none, the fact must be that this 1999 charge had never been laid before him.  I do agree.

6.Mrs Liang for the defendant essentially submits that the defendant is now suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  Two psychiatrists’ reports have been called for and both recommended a hospital order for six months for necessary treatment. 

7.Nonetheless, having considered the seriousness of the offences and I also understand that Correctional Services shall continue to render psychiatric treatment while in detention, I consider the most appropriate sentence would still be imprisonment.  Yet, I am prepared to take away the deterrent factor despite his repeated offences given his mental disorder. 

8.Therefore, on both charges, I still take 2 and a half years of imprisonment as starting point. Upon his guilty plea, I reduce it to 20 months.  Applying the totality principle, I order that only 4 months of the 2nd charge be run consecutive to the first one and that an overall sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

9.Defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for both charges, with recommendation that the defendant be given psychiatric treatment while in detention.