HKSAR v. Ng Tin Ho and Another
|
DCCC824/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 824 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Both defendants pleaded guilty to a joint charge of burglary. 2.The facts were that both defendants were acquaintances of the victim, aged 15, who lost his keys about 2 weeks before 30 May 2011. The victim’s premises were then unlocked and handbags, watch, computer and video camera were found missing. After about 2 weeks, the 1st defendant related to the victim that both defendants had entered the premises and stole properties therein. 3.Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted having burgled the premises and felt remorseful. Three handbags and a video camera were recovered from his premises. The 1st defendant further stated that the 2nd defendant would beat him if the 1st defendant did not join. 4.For the 2nd defendant, under caution he admitted having burgled the premises with the 1st defendant. A stolen watch and notebook computer were recovered from the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant further stated that he stole the victim’s keys as a trick and only intended to mess up his home, but later on was greedy and stole properties therein. He also sold part of the properties for $600. 5.The 1st defendant is aged 18 and he has a clear record. Ms Chow submitted that he is mild grade mentally disabled and is easily influenced by others. A report dated June 2006 by educational psychologist and a medical report dated October 2011 by a psychiatrist of Queen Mary Hospital are attached to show the 1st defendant’s mental condition. 6.Further, Mr Chow, a social worker of Outreaching team, having known the 1st defendant since 2009, had enclosed a letter stating that the 1st defendant was deeply regretful. The 1st defendant knew his offence was serious and Mr Chow observed that the 1st defendant might be to some extent intimidated by others. The 1st defendant’s mother and church leader also wrote to plead for leniency. 7.While Ms Chow emphasised that the 1st defendant was heavily influenced by others, it fell short of duress. 8.With all the reports and submission in mind, I can accept that the 1st defendant is a person of his mental condition easily affected by others. However, I do not consider it acceptable to the extent to say that the 1st defendant was threatened to commit the crime. 9.In any event, the 1st defendant is of young age, clear record and pleaded guilty. He had been remanded for obtaining reports. There were exceptional circumstances where a lenient sentence could be imposed, such as the fact that it was the 1st defendant who disclosed his offence directly to the victim and his association with the 2nd defendant, otherwise the crime would not have been known. Coupled with the 1st defendant’s mental condition, I consider it appropriate to adopt the recommendation of the probation officer. 10.For the 2nd defendant, aged 27 and he has 6 counts of previous criminal convictions, 3 of obtaining property by deception and 3 of theft, where he was last sentenced in September 2011 for 6 weeks’ imprisonment. 11.Mr Kam submits that he worked as a security guard until February this year, when the club was shut down and he lost his job. He did not have any premeditated plan to burgle, but rather originally intended to mess up the premises, only to be greedy later on and stole properties therein. The 2nd defendant now pleaded guilty and even agreed to be a prosecution witness at the outset. 12.Burglary is a serious offence. Domestic burglary would normally attract 3 years’ imprisonment. However, considering his willingness to be a prosecution witness, the fact that if all the offences including the recent matters could be dealt with together then an overall lesser sentence would be achieved. Considering all the mitigating factors submitted, I would adopt 2½ years’ imprisonment as a starting point. That will be reduced to 20 months upon his guilty plea. 13.So for the 1st defendant, the sentence he will receive is a probation order for 12 months; for the 2nd defendant, 20 months’ imprisonment.
|
Other judgments that cite this case