HKSAR v. Lam Pui Kwan Katherine
|
DCCC598/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 598 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.In this case, the defendant has pleaded guilty to four offences of burglary. 2.She has admitted the facts and I have convicted her of those offences. 3.The offences were committed in four separate shops inside a shopping centre in Tseung Kwan O and the offences appear to have been committed one after another. 4.The defendant has agreed a set of facts and, on the basis of her agreement, I have convicted her of the offences, and those facts establish that the location of these offences were at the food court on the 1st floor of the East Point City Shopping Centre at Chung Wa Road in Tseung Kwan O. 5.The shopping centre is open all the time but the food court closes at 10.30 and barriers are put over the exit of the food court at about 11 o’clock to prevent members of the public entering that area. 6.At about 11.21 on the evening of 25 April 2011, the defendant entered the food court. This is after it had been closed off. She stole property from four shops: Nos.7-8, 6, 5 and 4, the total value of that property being about $7,370. Signs of ransacking were found by the staff and the police were called. 7.Now, the actual items stolen were:
and the cash register at Shop no.6 had been prised open and damaged, as well as in Shop No.4. 8.On 26 April the defendant was intercepted and arrested and a notebook computer was recovered. There was a further house search and some stolen cash coupons were recovered from there. 9.Now, the CCTV installed in the food court, in fact, did capture the defendant’s entry and remaining there, and her fingerprint was also found there, so there was good evidence against her. 10.We could see that some coupons and a computer were recovered, so the actual loss is some $3,300. 11.I turn to the defendant’s antecedents. 12.She is a 31-year-old lady. She has some seven previous criminal convictions. She has been convicted of drug offences and also a number of theft offences, and in 2004 she was sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. 13.She had studied up to Form 5 in Hong Kong. She has a son aged 1 year old. 14.Now, on discovery of the fact the defendant was just recently become a mother, I obtained a background report. 15.There are special considerations in the sentencing of people who have young children dependent on them. I have to consider not only the defendant’s culpability, I also have to consider the fact that the child in question does have a right to family life, and that is a fact that may be considered in sentencing. 16.Now, the facts show that the defendant has a cohabitant, a Mr Leung who is a construction worker. They live together in a public housing unit and the probation officer has described the defendant as being guarded about her family background. 17.She did reveal that her son is currently under the care of her father who stopped work to help out. She confirms that she had been married before and she said she was formerly married to her cohabitant. She had looked after the son herself. The boy was under the care of her father now, since she has been remanded. 18.The report also showed that she had contact with the child who was brought to her at a McDonald’s restaurant about once every two months. 19.So the report, insofar as it can deal with the child, appears to show that the child is currently under the care of the defendant’s father. 20.Also, it is the case that, in respect of children under the age of 2 years, they can, in fact, be with their parent in prison if the parents so request, so the fact of imprisonment of the defendant does not necessarily mean she must be separated from her child, but it does appear that the decision she has made about where to locate the child will mean that during the course of any prison sentence, she would be separated from him. 21.I now turn to the question of sentence. 22.These offences are burglary offences, the entry of a trespasser going into the food court when it was closed. 23.There was some minor damage caused in the course of obtaining the items, but this form of burglary is by no means the most serious form of burglary one could encounter. It involves little planning and the only way it differs from ordinary shop theft is the fact that it was done when the area is closed off. 24.Nevertheless, it does fall within the sentencing guidelines of a non-domestic burglary which carries a lengthy sentence. 25.In this case there are four individual burglaries committed, but they are clearly all part of one transaction in one place. We all know what a food court looks like and how the shops are arranged, and the defendant has just gone from one to another to see what was available to be taken, and other than the computers, there was not much to be taken. At least half of what was taken has been recovered. 26.These are all mitigating factors. 27.Besides those general mitigating factors arising out of the offence, there is the existence of the defendant’s child and the separation that will be caused by a prison sentence, and these are all factors I bear in mind when considering the overall totality of sentence. 28.In this case I shall take the starting point for a non-domestic burglary, which is 2½ years’ imprisonment. 29.I shall reduce that by one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty. That is, in fact, a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. 30.I shall order that the defendant serve a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment on each charge. 31.Having regard to the overall totality - I have already made my observations about the nature of these offences and the defendant’s personal position - I consider the sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment is ample in terms of length of sentence for these offences. I shall order them to all be run concurrently to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment. 32.That is the sentence I will impose.
|