HKSAR v. Li Kar Man and Another

DCCC795/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 795 OF 2012

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendants have pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant state that in relation to Charge 1, on 10 July 2012, at 1708 hours, police officers were patrolling in the area of Ka Shin Street in Mong Kok.  The 2nd defendant was pushing a trolley and on the trolley there were three air-conditioners and three bags.  The 1st defendant was carrying another bag.  Various pieces of scrap were found inside the bags. 

3.The defendants were asked about these items and they frankly admitted that they had stolen them from premises in 22-22A Ka Shin Street in Mong Kok, Kowloon, for reselling since they had no money.  

4.The defendants were arrested, charged and then subsequently released on bail.  Whilst on bail on 27 July at 11.55 in the morning, Mr Leung saw two males entering a vacant residential building on 456 Sai Yeung Choi Street in Sham Shui Po.  He reported the matter to the police and when the police attended later on, they searched the building and on the 8th floor they came across the two defendants who were putting bundles of electric wire into two bags and they had pliers in their hands.

5.Again they frankly admitted that they had gone to these premises to steal.  They said they had no money and they intended to steal electric wire for resale. 

6.Both of the buildings concerned in these charges were vacant residential buildings and they were acquired by companies with a view to redevelopment.

7.The value of the property stolen was very small; in the 1st charge it was worth about $400 and in the 2nd charge, less than $100. 

8.Both the defendants have been before the courts previously.  The 1st defendant has six previous court appearances for various offences including theft, assault and drug offences.  I should add, however, that the theft offence was committed when he was a juvenile in 1994.  His most recent appearance was for possession of dangerous drugs on 28 November 2011 when he was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment.  I understand that he was released from prison in respect of that matter in February 2012. 

9.The 2nd defendant has two court appearances, one in 2001 and then 10 years later, in 2011.  Both court appearances were for drug-related offences and in 2011 he was sent to prison for 4 months. 

10.I am told that the 1st defendant is 33 years of age.  He is single and has a 1½-year-old son.  At the time of the offences, the son, I understand, was living with him, but he is now living back with his mother. 

11.I am told that both defendants work as casual workers earning some $350 per day.  I am told also that they both live in rooftop premises for which they pay $4,500 per month.  I am told that at the time of these offences the defendants were unable to find sufficient work and were in financial problems.  And on each of the occasions they were looking to get scrap out of these buildings with a view to raising some funds.

12.As burglaries go, these offences are very much at the lower end of the scale.  Although the premises were described as being residential, they were in fact just buildings and they were awaiting demolition. The value of property stolen from them was very low.

13.In respect of each offence, I am proposed to take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect their guilty pleas. 

14.The 2nd offence was committed whilst the defendants were on bail for the 1st offence.  Usually, for offences committed on bail, terms of imprisonment are imposed consecutively.  I have, however, considered the question of totality.   Taking into account all the circumstances, I have decided that 6 months of the 2nd offence should run consecutive to the 12 months for the 1st offence, the total period of imprisonment therefore for each defendant will be 18 months.