HKSAR v. Chan Wan Kin
|
DCCC713/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 713 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges; one of attempted burglary and the other of burglary (charges 2 and 3). 2.You admitted that on 14 May 2010, in Hong Kong, you attempted to enter as a trespasser, part of a building known as Tsuen Wan Tso Kung Square Gospel Hall, Mezzanine Floor, Man Shing Building, No. 27 Tso Kung Square, Tsuen Wan, with intent to steal therein (Charge 2). Further you admitted that on the same day you burgled the same building, but this time, at the loft of the Ground Floor (Charge 3). 3.On the day in question at about 9.15 pm while a man called Mr Chu Lok-yuen was walking down the staircase at the Man Shing Building, he saw you carrying a shoulder bag and holding a screwdriver in your hand. Mr Chu saw you try to prize open a window of the Tsuen Wan Tso Kung Square Gospel Hall located at the mezzanine floor of the building but in vain. That is the subject premises of the 2nd charge. Mr Chu immediately made a report to the police. 4.The police arrived and arrested you outside the ground floor of the building. Upon search, they found a screwdriver, a pair of gloves and a cap inside the bag you were carrying. 5.Under caution, you asked for a chance and said the flat was empty and there was nothing to steal from it. The flat you were referring to was the loft of the ground floor, the subject of the 3rd charge. 6.You admitted in a subsequent cautioned interview that you had burgled the loft as you did not have any money and there was nothing to steal. You further admitted that you brought the pair of gloves, screwdriver and cap from home to avoid being captured by the CCTV or leaving behind any fingerprints. You admitted you had used the screwdriver to prize open the window of the loft in Charge 3. 7.The owner of the loft confirmed that there was a prize mark on the window. The preacher of the gospel hall confirmed that there had been signs of ransacking inside the gospel hall and one of the items that he used to put in his office was found at the toilet of the gospel hall. 8.You are aged 33 and have been to court on three previous occasions and have totally from those three occasions in court 20 previous convictions for burglary. 9.Mr Spicer has made very full and thorough mitigation on your behalf. I have taken into account all that he has had to say for you. 10.You are aged 33 and have a child who lives with his mother in China. You have been relying on CSSA to support yourself along with some casual work. 11.Mr Spicer has recognized the fact that you have many previous convictions. Usually, for that, a higher starting point is required for persistent offenders. He has asked me, however, to take into account your early offer to plead guilty some time on 28 July and the fact that the Department of Justice took time to accept your plea to these two charges and the fact that you were in financial difficulties and thus committed these offences. Furthermore, despite your record, you had been out of trouble for at least 5 years as your last conviction was in June 2004. 12.I recognize that your strongest plea in mitigation is your guilty plea. 13.These were non-domestic premises and for non-domestic premises, the usual starting point after trial is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment. 14.As Mr Spicer rightly pointed out, you have been a persistent offender since 1996. Since 1996 to 2004 you have committed 20 burglary offences. I have taken into account what Mr Spicer has said in that in 1996 for 9 of those offences you were a youth aged 19 and sentenced to a training centre. This does not, however, take away the fact that since then you have had a further 11 previous similar convictions. It is clear that a higher starting point should be taken given the fact of your previous record. 15.This, as I see it, was also the case on your last conviction in 2004 where for one offence of burglary, you were sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. It would appear from that record and sentence that the court there also took a higher starting point of 3½ years. If, however, I am incorrect on that, I still regard the fact that in view of your previous commissions of these offences, a higher starting point should be taken today. 16.There are two charges before me today, one of attempted burglary, which is the same as that of a substantive offence of burglary, and a burglary charge. I consider a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate for those two charges. I give you full credit for your plea of guilty and reduce those terms to one of 2 years’ imprisonment. I also take into account the principle of totality and I would make an order that those two sentences are to run concurrent to each other, so you will then be sentenced to a total of 2 years’ imprisonment for both charges.
|