HKSAR v. Lau Chi Keung

DCCC861/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 861 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary. His has admitted the relevant facts and I have convicted him of that offence.

2.The burglary occurred in the early hours of 6 June 2011 in a restaurant, the Loong Yue Ho Restaurant in Lau Fau Shan in the New Territories.  This restaurant is a family business.  It is open from about 10 in the morning until 11 in the evening.  The restaurant was closed and the back gate was locked and the door between the kitchen and dining area was simply sealed with adhesive tape.

3.The family that owns the business lives opposite and one of them saw the defendant at the rear iron gate of the restaurant; that was at about 2 o’clock in the morning of 6 June.  He then saw the defendant climb into the restaurant via the iron gate.  Police were called and they went in and found the defendant inside.  He was equipped in the sense that he was wearing a black hood and he had labour gloves on and a torch and screw driver were found on his person. 

4.The defendant immediately admitted what he had done.  He said he went there to steal; he was acting on his own; he found the labour gloves and screw driver in the restaurant and he had bought the black hood with him obviously for disguise.  He had used the screw driver to prize open the kitchen door. 

5.In a video interview record the defendant elaborated somewhat further on his earlier admission.  He had initially gone past the restaurant and found that the rear iron gate was not shut.  He had gone home and got hold of the hood that he wore and also a torch.  He climbed into the restaurant via the iron gate; picked up the labour gloves from a table; he used the screw driver to prize open the kitchen door; and he started ransacking the cashier counter.  He was on his own and his intention was to get money. 

6.It was found that there was, in fact, no loss to the restaurant. 

7.The defendant made a complete admission to those facts and obviously he has clearly established the offence of burglary.  The defendant has admitted his antecedents.  He has a substantial criminal record with 15 previous convictions dated from 1996 and there are a number of offences of theft, and theft of a vehicle and also going equipped for stealing. 

8.The defendant has been sentenced to community service, drug addiction treatment centre.  He received over 2 years’ imprisonment in 2002 for robbery.  He has received sentences of up to 6 months’ imprisonment for theft of a vehicle.  Most recently, in 2010, he was sentenced for going equipped for stealing.  So the defendant has a poor criminal record for offences of dishonesty.  What may be said in his favour, is not, on the face of this criminal record, committed an offence of burglary before.

9.The defendant is aged 40.  He is single and received education up to Form 1 level.  At the time of his arrest he was unemployed and in receipt of social security.  He had only been discharged from prison on 5 March 2011.  He lives with his mother in Lau Fau Shan and receives $1,600 from social security. 

10.The defendant has committed a non-domestic premises burglary where fortunately, because of police action, nothing was actually taken.  There was some minor damage to the premises.  The defendant did equip himself in the sense of obtaining a hood and also a torch and he also used implements he found inside the restaurant to further the burglary.

11.It can be said the defendant has cooperated with the police from the beginning of the investigation especially from the time that he was arrested by making full admission. He is remorseful and has pleaded guilty.  

12.The well established starting point for sentence for a non-domestic burglary is one of 30 months’ imprisonment or 2½ years.  Although the defendant has a poor criminal record and may be seen as a recidivist I do not consider it would be appropriate in his case to enhance the starting point or the finishing point of the sentence.

13.I shall, therefore, take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and give the defendant a full discount of one-third for his plea of guilty which leads to a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment and that is the sentence I will impose, 20 months’ imprisonment.