HKSAR v. Wu Chi Mo
|
DCCC125/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 125 OF 2011 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of non-domestic burglary. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on 27 December 2010, he entered a restaurant at night on Tam Kung Road, To Kwa Wan, with intent to steal. 3.The facts admitted by the defendant state that on 27 December police officers were on anti-burglary patrol in Kowloon City area. As they were patrolling along Tam Kung Road outside the restaurant in question, they noticed that the switchbox for the electronic rolling gate had been prised open. A police officer reported this to a senior officer, and the officer was told to keep the premises under observation. 4.It was not until 7.40 the next morning that the officers saw the defendant standing outside the restaurant holding a bag. He was observed tampering with the padlocks of the rolling gate and subsequently managed to open the locks. The defendant then used the switch inside the prised switchbox to open the rolling gate. When the rolling gate was half-way up the defendant opened the glass door of the restaurant, placed his bag and padlocks inside, and then pressed the button inside the switchbox to close the rolling gate. It was at this stage the police officers moved in and the defendant was arrested inside the premises. He was wearing a surgical mask and a pair of gloves. He had a torch hanging in front of his chest, screwdriver in his left hand, a crowbar, two iron bars, and two padlocks, were found inside the restaurant. 5.When he was cautioned and arrested at the scene, he lied to the police officers. He said that it was the first time he had committed a burglary. 6.When the defendant was searched, four keys were found inside his pocket trousers. These keys were found to open the two padlocks which had been seized. However, when the manager of the restaurant later attended the premises, he said that the padlocks seized were not the property of his restaurant and, in fact, the keys that he produced for the original padlock did not work on the padlocks that were seized by the police officers. Therefore, it seems that the defendant had substituted the original padlocks with padlocks he had brought along. 7.The defendant has appeared before the court on 10 previous occasions in respect of 12 offences. Nine of them are theft-related and two are offences of burglary. He was released from prison in September 2010, a couple of months before the commission of the current offence. 8.The defendant is 39 years of age. He is divorced, and he lives in the New Territories with his mother. His mother is 60 and has a long-term illness. She suffers from hypertension and diabetes. She lives on social security. 9.The defendant was born on the Mainland and came to Hong Kong with his family in 1983. He was educated to Form 1 standard. 10.He worked as a casual construction worker earning some $300 a day. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. 11.He says he is remorseful for the offences and has written a letter asking for leniency. 12.In mitigation, it was urged upon me that the defendant has pleaded guilty to this offence, that he was acting alone, nobody was harmed, and no property was stolen. 13.Counsel for the defendant has also referred me to the appropriate case which states that the usual sentence for an offence of this kind is a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment. 14.However, this offence has all the hallmarks of a professional and well-organised operation. The defendant was equipped with a crowbar, two iron bars, two padlocks, a torch, clubs, surgical mask. 15.He had taken his time about the commission of the offence. He had gone to the premises obviously earlier in the morning and prised open the switchbox. It seems clear that he had also substituted the padlocks for the rolling gate. The way in which he entered the premises showed that he had given the matter some considerable thought. He opened the rolling gate half-way, went inside, and closed the rolling gate so his actions inside could not be seen. 16.Had it not been for the diligence of Detective Sergeant 52368, this matter would never have been detected. 17.The defendant has an appalling record. He has been before the court on a number of occasions for dishonesty, twice for burglary; and he came out of prison very shortly before the commission of this offence. 18.It seems to be that, given the way in which this offence was committed and the record of the defendant, that the usual starting point for sentences of this kind do not deter this particular defendant. Indeed, it seems to have spurred him on to approach the commission of offence in a more sophisticated and professional manner. 19.I therefore propose to take a starting point of 3 years for this offence. 20.The defendant is entitled to a discount for his guilty plea, so the sentence will be reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||