HKSAR v. Chow Yiu Chung and Another
|
DCCC1247/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1247 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Defendants, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance. You have admitted that on 15 September 2010, in Hong Kong, you entered as trespassers a flat known as Room 224, Hin Tak House, Hin Keng Estate, Shatin, New Territories, and stole one bag, a wooden saw machine, three nail punchers, two screwdrivers, one pair of pliers, two drill heads, two electric grinders, one electric saw and three electric drills. I shall refer to these stolen items collectively as renovation tools. 2.On 15 September 2010, the premises that were burgled were under renovation. One of the renovation workers had left the property at about 6 pm, locked the wooden door of the premises and placed the key under the metal gate and left. The metal gate was closed but not locked. In the premises were the renovation tools. 3.At about 7.30 pm that day, officers who were patrolling in the area of Hin Keng Estate saw the two of you defendants outside Hin Pui House, Hin Keng Estate. The officers noticed that you were carrying bags that looked heavy and were both walking quickly. You were both then intercepted by police officers. In the bags you were carrying divided amongst you both were the renovation tools. 4.1st Defendant, you admitted that you had entered the premises with the key and stole all the renovation’s tools. After you had stolen the tools, you gave some to D2. You admitted that you committed this offence as your wife was sick and you did not have any money and, hence, you planned to sell the renovation tools to supplement your expenses. 5.D2, you admitted that the 1st defendant gave you some of the renovation tools. You also had planned to sell them. You admitted, D2, that you acted as a lookout for D1 when he stole the exhibits. You were acting, as a lookout and would call D1 if you saw police patrolling in the area. 6.D1 and D2, you are both represented today by your solicitor, Mr Lam, and I have taken into account all that he has said on your behalf in mitigation. For D1, you are 35 years of age and have seven previous convictions, none of which are similar, a number related to dangerous drugs. At the time of the offence, Defendant, you were unemployed. You are married and living in the Shatin area. 7.I am informed by Mr Lam that as stated to the police, your reason for commission of this offence was because of your wife’s illness and you needed money to supplement your expenses. You were at the relevant time on public assistance of $1,800 per month. 8.2nd defendant, you are aged 53 and have 13 previous convictions, of which none are similar, and again most of them being related to possession of dangerous drugs. You were unemployed at the date of the offence. You are a drug addict, and as stated, you were going to sell these renovation tools. 9.I am informed that you are suffering from a mental illness which is diagnosed as depression. I have borne that in mind but I feel that for this type of mental illness, it is not necessary for me to call for a psychiatric report. You were attending Prince of Wales for your medical treatment, and I have no doubt that you will be receiving whatever medical treatment is necessary when you are under the care of the Correctional Services Department. You are also married and live in the Shatin area. 10.Mr Lam has informed me that when you both burgled these premises, there was no risk of any person being injured as the flat was under renovation. The premises were not broken into as such because a key was used to enter the premises, and the stolen property, the renovation tools in question, the value was minimal at approximately $1,000-odd. 11.Mr Lam rightly pointed out that the guideline for domestic-premises burglary is that of 3 years’ imprisonment after trial. You, Defendant 1, had entered the building to these premises by following another tenant. Your intention was to look for premises which were under renovation and burgle from them. Although I accept of course that there was no risk of anybody being injured, nevertheless, as Mr Lam rightly points out, this was a domestic premises under renovation. 12.Accused present. Appearances as before. 13.Defendants, the strongest mitigating factor is of course your plea of guilty, and for your plea, you will receive the full credit of one‑third. In this case then I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that term to one of 2 years’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced.
|