HKSAR v. Nguyen Thai Son and Another
|
DCCC884/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 884 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.D1, you have been convicted after trial of an offence of assault on a police officer with intent to resist arrest and for possession of an offensive weapon. We have been through the facts at length today and I do not intend to repeat them. 2.D2, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you. 3.The facts, as far as you are concerned, are very close to the facts that were used in the opening of the case against D1, so far as the burglary is concerned. 4.The case involved a building site at Castle Peak Road, Hung Shui Kiu. The site supervisor, at about 6 pm on 25 June last, left the site secure. The site is surrounded by a board fence. 5.PW2 at about 3 am saw two males park bicycles and walk towards the site. Being suspicious, he called for assistance. 6.Around 3.23 am he saw six bundles of electric cable pushed from the gap at the bottom of the wooden boards. 7.At around 3.31 am, PC 508, who was PW3 in the trial of D1, found you, D2, climbing out over the wooden boards. He intercepted you and searched you. He found a torch and pliers in your trousers pocket. 8.He arrested and cautioned you. You admitted stealing some electric cables which you intended to sell. The torch was for illumination and the pliers to cut the cable. 9.After the incident, PW1 found cables used to connect the generator and the electric meters had been cut and missing. He identified the electric cables as being worth $4,000 and belonged to the site which were discovered at the scene. 10.D1, you admitted to 14 previous convictions, many of which involved violence. 11.D2, you admitted to five previous convictions, one involving dishonesty. 12.D1, on my indication that in view of the time you have spent on remand, I would be returning a sentence which I believed would allow your immediate release, Mr Chu did not enter any mitigation; it was unnecessary. Unless there are any factors of which we are unaware, that is the position. 13.D2, on your behalf, Mr Ho entered mitigation. 14.He told me that you are 46 years of age, married with a son of 5. You were educated to only primary level. You came to Hong Kong in 1986. 15.You have worked recently as a casual construction worker, earning about $10,000 a month, $4,000 of which you remitted to Vietnam for the upkeep of your family. That family includes your elderly mother. 16.However, your work is casual work and it has been in short supply recently, and you found yourself, at the time of this burglary, to be in dire financial needs, and that is your explanation for your burglary and theft of the wire. 17.I turn now to the sentences. 18.D1, I will deal with you first. I have to say that you do have an appallingly bad record. You are clearly a man who has used and threatened violence in the past. 19.However, I do not sentence you on that basis; you have served your sentence for those offences. 20.I make it clear to you and clear to everyone that the courts of Hong Kong will not tolerate police officers being threatened when they are in the lawful execution of their duty. 21.Having said that, this was not by far the worst two offences of their kind. They involved you producing and threatening the officer with a cutter; that is not an offensive weapon per se. The officer himself was well-armed, having a baton and a gun and possibly other weapons on his person, and once he had struck you with that baton, you very quickly capitulated and put the cutter down. 22.In all the circumstances, you will go to prison on each of these charges for 6 months concurrent. That is a total of 6 months’ imprisonment.23.Now, unless I stray dreadfully into an error, that means you have served 5 months on remand, approximately. A few days will be taken up for your very ill-advised outburst against my colleague, the magistrate. 24.So, assuming you have been of good behaviour, you will be released immediately. COURT: Understand? A. Yes. 25.I turn now to you, D2. 26.D2, this is a typical burglary of a construction site. There are no aggravating features whatsoever, nor are there are any notable or special mitigating features. 27.I, therefore, take as a starting point the normal tariff sentence, one of 30 months, reduced to 20 months for your plea. 28.So, you go to prison for 20 months.
|