HKSAR v. Lai King on

DCCC 943/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 943 OF 2012

____________

____________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of loitering with intent, contrary to section 160(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200.

2.In summary at about 7.26 p.m. on the 24th August last year the defendant and another male were seen by a neighbour to be loitering outside a 4-storey low-rise building at Nos. 86C and 86D Pok Fu Lam Road.  The defendant was seen lifting up the other male on to the ledge between the covered car park and the two ground floor units.  The defendant then walked along the ledge and boarded a private car bearing registration number MW 8638.  The defendant drove the car to the driveway adjacent to the building and waited there.  A report was then made by the neighbour to the police. 

3.The police arrived about 15 minutes later at which time the other male was seen emerging from the rear of the building and fleeing along a footpath to make good his escape.  The police intercepted the defendant as he drove towards the main road. The defendant said he had just dropped a friend off and was making a U-turn to leave. 

4.On searching the car the police found a knife, a cutter, two pairs of pliers, 10 gloves and 3 masks together with some items of clothing.  Police enquiries also revealed fresh prize marks and broken wood chips of a door to one of the ground floor units.  Further the registration number MW 8638 actually belonged to a motor cycle and had been glued on to conceal the original number plate of RD 7398.

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Surman on behalf of the defendant, in particular how the defendant has tried to build up a business of his own since his last release from prison in January 2009 and that his wife has just given birth to a son.   

6.The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, in offences of dishonesty including convictions for robbery, burglary and theft and one for loitering in 2004.  The last appearance in court was in June 2006 for offences of burglary for which the defendant received a total sentence of 4 years and 10 months imprisonment, which included the activation of a 4 months suspended sentence for the loitering. 

7.In HKSAR v Yeung Kwan Hung CACC 217/2010 the Court of Appeal held that the proper starting point for a person with an appalling criminal record who is convicted of loitering where the arrestable offence was theft from vehicle was one of 3 months imprisonment.  The offence of burglary of domestic premises is a more serious arrestable offence.

8.In all the circumstances I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 4½ months imprisonment.  This in my view is not a case calling for the maximum sentence.  Had the defendant committed the offences shortly after release from his last long prison sentence the maximum sentence may have been appropriate. 

9.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.