HKSAR v. Lo Yuen Wah, Stanley

DCCC219/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 219 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 14 January he entered the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union on the 8th floor of the Good Hope Building in Nathan Road as a trespasser with intent to steal. On 14 January the premises were secured at 10.15 pm.  The gates and the main entrances of the Union had anti-theft devices and they had been activated.

3.At about 11.19 pm an officer was told that the anti-theft alarm had been activated and he went to investigate.  He heard someone banging at the gates of the main entrance from the inside and shouting for help.  Personnel of the Union arrived subsequently.  The gates were opened and the defendant was found standing behind the gates.

4.He admitted that he had gone to these premises in order to steal.  He said he went to the rear entrance of the Union at about 8.46 pm, and that he hid himself in a toilet until the staff had left, and he had gone there with a view to stealing.  In his possession was a torch, a pair of pincers and a bag.

5.The defendant has appeared in court on 11 previous occasions for 21 offences, and 15 of those offences were for dishonesty and one was for burglary.  The defendant was last before the court in March of last year when he was sent to prison for 2 months for three offences of theft.

6.I am told that the defendant is 29.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 3 standard.  He has worked on and off as a welder.  He is a drug addict and he lives in Tuen Mun.  He is married.  He has a wife and elder brother who are in court today.  His parents are in their 60s.  His mother is working in Hong Kong and his father works on the Mainland.

7.I am told that the motivation for this offence was financial, it was committed to finance his drug problem.  I am told that the defendant is extremely remorseful for this offence.  A number of letters have been placed before the court:  from the defendant, from his parents, from his elder brother, and from his wife.  He obviously comes from a caring background.  The parents are still concerned about their son and went to visit him, and obviously the rest of his family are extremely concerned about the situation.

8.The defendant has been involved in criminal activities since 1996.  He has a previous conviction for burglary, and he knows that if he is caught he will go to prison.  The only issue is how long.  He will have been told that the usual sentence for this offence is 2½ years’ imprisonment, but of course that could be increased because of aggravating features, such as a bad record.  The defendant has a bad record.  Fortunately, the only conviction for burglary, I note, was in 1996, some considerable time ago, when he was placed on probation.

9.In all the circumstances I have decided not to increase the usual starting point.  I will adopt a 30-month starting point and reduce it by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.

10.The defendant will go to prison for 20 months.