HKSAR v. Chui Luk Cheung
|
DCCC1097/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1097 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, Laws of Hong Kong, the particulars being that you, on 25 October 2010, entered the staff changing room of the Wah Tat Industrial Centre in Kwai Chung and stole from one of the lockers a handbag containing a wallet, cash of $280, a Hong Kong ID card, and ATM card, an Octopus card, and other miscellaneous items. 2.The brief facts which you have admitted indicate that at 8.30 on the morning of the day in question the victim, who was a security officer of the industrial building, put her handbag in her in her locker in the changing room and locked it with a padlock before commencing her work. When she went off duty at around 6.20 pm the same evening, she returned to the changing room and found that the latch had been prised open and her handbag together with its contents had vanished. 3.Two of your fingerprints and your palm prints were lifted from the outer surface of the locker and as a result you were put on the Watch List, and on 30 August 2011, when you entered Hong Kong from Lok Ma Chau, you were arrested. 4.Under caution, you admitted the offence but you told the police that when you entered the changing room the locker door had already been prised open. 5.I say to you that I do not accept this. You through your counsel have submitted a letter of mitigation written by yourself in which you have said quite specifically, and I have had this interpreted by my court interpreter, that you pulled the lock with force, the latch dropped and the locker opened. 6.You are 45 years of age and live now in Shenzhen. You became unemployed in the Mainland and came to Hong Kong looking for a job to support yourself and your family. You were unable to find a job, as a result of which this offence occurred. 7.By way of mitigation, it has been urged upon me to treat this offence as an opportunistic offence, akin to a sneak thief who walks into open premises in order to steal. 8.With respect, I disagree. Whilst there is no evidence that you planned this burglary as such, the fact that you were not authorised to enter these premises, let alone the changing room, and then force open one of the lockers, I find to be inconsistent with the activities of a sneak thief. 9.The only real mitigation that has been put before me is your plea of guilty and I will give you credit for that. 10.The normal starting point for burglaries of non-domestic premises is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment. I indeed adopt that as my starting point. I will discount that sentence by one-third to take account of your plea of guilty, coming to 20 months’ imprisonment.
|