HKSAR v. Yeung Hei Chun
|
DCCC577/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 577 OF 2012 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to three offences of burglary, each contrary to sections 11(1)B and (4), and to one offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you. 2.What happened is this. Between December 2011 and February 2012 you worked at Dumbo Portuguese Restaurant, Megabox, Kowloon Bay, as a waiter. At the time of the offences you had ceased that employment. Since January 2012 the roller shutter at the main entrance was not working properly and was secured by a chain which still left a 50 centimetre gap. Next to the cash register there was a tips box secured by a padlock, the key which was kept by the manager. The spare key to the tips box was in the drawer to the left of the cash register. 3.On 16 May of 2012 the manager counted the tips in the box and found $300 missing. CCTV showed a male who resembled you take the spare key, open the tips box and remove money. 4.At about 3.40 pm, on 18 May of this year, DPC3159 arrested you. He cautioned you in Megabox. Under caution you admitted stealing from the restaurant. In subsequent video recorded interview, under caution, you admitted the following:
5.You are a young man of hitherto clear record. In view of this, and given your relatively young age, I adjourn the case for a probation officer’s background report, a report as to your suitability for training in a training centre. Those reports are now before me and I have considered them in full. 6.In mitigation Mr Wong, on your behalf, told me that you agreed with the contents of the reports, adopted the contents and urged me to follow the recommendation for training centre. He also produced a letter from your mother which was one of explanation and support, and a letter from yourself. I have considered both of those letters when coming to my sentence. The Sentence 7.You are 19 years old, educated to Form 5, and of clear record. You are the older of two children. I note on the positive side that you enjoy the support of your family. Also it appears that you have a long and complicated medical history which has contributed towards your underachieving at school. You suffer from various conditions, including ADD, hyperactivity, dyslexia and sleepwalk. The one aggravating feature in this case is the offences of burglary are breaches of trust. I say that because you had been employed by the restaurant. 8.There are three non-domestic burglaries, and also there is one offence of theft. In respect of the burglaries themselves, I do note that the amounts of money taken were small and there was no damage done to the premises. I have also taken into account that you were extraordinarily cooperative on arrest and cautioned, admitting your part fully. Also that you indicated a plea of guilty at the first available opportunity, from this I deduced that you are genuinely remorseful for what you have done. 9.The normal sentence in such cases would be a starting point of 30 months, reduced to 20 months for your plea of guilty. That, of course, would be immediate imprisonment. However, in my opinion, your need to rehabilitate and society’s need to have you do so would be better served by the more positive and constructive sentence of training centre. Training centres, as you are fully aware, involves custodial training, followed by a period of supervision. It is my hope that such a sentence will enable you to reflect and to mend your ways. 10.Therefore I make a training centre order in respect of each of the four offences.
|