HKSAR v. Lo Yim Chiu
|
DCCC1087/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1087 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. 2.You admitted the facts and I convicted you. Briefly the facts are as follows. 3.PW1 was a security guard of Shun Fat Building, 72-76 Queen’s Road East, Wan Chai. It is in character a residential development. 4.At about 12.30 pm on 21 April last, PW1 through the CCTV system saw you climbing into the pipe located at the courtyard of the building and looking for something. As the courtyard was locked, he found this to be suspicious. She then notified a resident, PW2. 5.PW2 through the window saw you touching the door lock of one of the toilets in the courtyard. He asked you how you came to be in the courtyard and you said you just walked in. He said this was impossible and then at this point you fled. You used the door which was locked on the outside but could be opened from the inside. The police were called. 6.At about 4.40 pm that same day, the police intercepted you at 98 Queen’s Road East, arrested and cautioned you. You admitted climbing into the courtyard to see if you could steal anything. At a subsequent video recorded interview under caution you admitted the offence but said that you stole nothing. 7.You admitted to 15 previous convictions, seven of which related to dishonesty. 8.On your behalf, Ms Chan entered mitigation. She said that whilst you had a poor record you had made efforts to keep out of trouble. You had committed no offences since 2007. You had been working as a decoration worker but had become unemployed. Your wife who lives in Shenzhen is pregnant. Therefore you were desperate for money to provide for the baby and the medical expenses. 9.She said that you are 43 years of age and educated to Form 3. She pointed out that in the commission of the offence no one was injured, nothing was taken and you were cooperative with the police and have pleaded guilty. 10.She read out a letter which you had written to court in which you echoed the mitigation she had entered, you apologised for the offence and asked for leniency. The Sentence 11.Very fairly the prosecution conceded that though this was a residential block of flats, you had entered a non-residential part of those flats. I accept fully that in the course of the commission of the offence nothing was taken; no one was harmed and on arrest you were cooperative with the police. Whilst you have a poor record, I note that you have and I accept that you have made efforts to keep away from trouble since 2007. 12.I accept that you are about to be a father and this offence was motivated by the need to provide for your unborn child. In view of what has been said and the facts, I treat this as a non-domestic burglary with some extra mitigation. 13.I therefore take a slightly lower than usual starting point. That starting point is 27 months reduced to 18 months for your plea of guilty. You will go to prison for 18 months.
|