HKSAR v. Ung King Lung
|
DCCC660/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 660 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) & (4), of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. 2.Between the evening of 9 April and the early hours of 10 April this year, the defendant has admitted burglary of four premises and the attempted burglary of one premise. All took place in the Mongkok or Tai Kok Tsui area. The items he has stolen were not of great value. Clearly, the defendant broke into premises hoping to find something valuable as opposed to knowing he would find something valuable. 3.The defendant has obviously waited until nightfall to ensure no one was inside these premises and he has forced his way in damaging doors to gain entry. 4.The defendant is not a man of clear record, he has seven previous convictions, most relating to possession of dangerous drugs. For the defendant’s last conviction, he was sentenced to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre in 2009. The defendant’s antecedent statement has been produced to court. In it he claims to be a drug abuser as well as being unemployed. 5.In mitigation today it has been explained that he was desperate for money to pay his rent and buy food. However, I am sure that the defendant was in need of money to buy drugs as well. 6.The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. I have heard the defendant’s background, I have heard the defendant is remorseful and have seen a letter written by the defendant setting out his background and his desire to turn over a new leaf. Ultimately, the defendant asks for leniency. 7.As I have said, the defendant is not a man of clear record but he has no similar convictions. 8.I have considered the facts of the case and of each burglary and the damage and loss suffered by the victims. Normally a 2½ year starting point would be appropriate for a non-domestic premises burglary. This is where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors present. In this case the defendant has hit five premises in a very short period of time. I find this to be an aggravating factor. I will take a higher starting point than 2½ years to reflect this fact. 9.Defendant, please stand up. 10.For each charge I will a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. You will be entitled to a discount of 1 year for your plea today. For each charge, there are five charges, I impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment, and because I have already raised the starting point to reflect the number of burglaries, all five will be served concurrently. That means a total sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.
|