HKSAR v. Li Wai Ming

DCCC296/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 296 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of Burglary. The premises concerned are buildings at a construction site in the Hung Hom Estate in Tai Wan Road, Hung Hom.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant disclose that at the material time construction work had been going on at this site for some time.  The site was surrounded by water-fillable hoardings and security guards were employed and CCTV cameras installed.  Shortly before 1 am on 18 February 2011 a security noticed on the CCTV camera that there was a man wearing a safety helmet on the construction site.  He was suspicious because of the construction workers had left and he therefore made a report to the police.

3.A few minutes later the police arrived and located the defendant on the 1st floor of one of the buildings of the site.  He was wearing a blue T-shirt on top of his jacket which he admitted having stolen. 

4.When interviewed he stated that some days before the offence, he had heard, when sitting in the park in Sham Shiu Po, that the entry to this construction site was easy. 

5.On the day in question he had gone to the site, surveyed it for 15 to 20 minutes and gained access by climbing over the hoardings.  Once inside he put on the blue T-shirt and a safety helmet so as not to look too conspicuous.  He was looking for an opportunity to steal anything valuable in the site.

6.Although the defendant has a number of previous court appearances, 12 prior convictions, the vast majority of the convictions were in 1993 and 94, some considerable time ago and all related to either dutiable goods or possession of items infringing copyright.  In respect of all those offences he was dealt with by way of a fine.

7.In 2006, however, he was convicted of Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs for which he was sent to prison for three years and six months.  He has no previous convictions for any offences of dishonesty. 

8.In mitigation I am told that the defendant is single, he is 51 and he lives alone.  He has a 21 year old son who is at university on the Mainland and lives with his elderly mother.  I am told that the defendant has had an eye operation which has limited his capability for work.  He works as a casual construction worker earning from $2,000 to $3,000 per month and he committed the offence because he needed money to support his son and elderly mother. 

9.I note that the usual sentence for an offence of this kind is a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment being burglary at non-domestic premises.  He had entered the site late at night; the site was surrounded by water-fillable hoardings; security guards were employed and there were CCTV cameras installed on the site and would expect to find valuable items of equipment and tools on such a site.

10.Having considered all the circumstances I took a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment and reduced that by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.  The defendant will, therefore, go to prison for 16 months.