HKSAR v. Lee Chun Kit
|
DCCC 862/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 862 OF 2012 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant, Lee Chun-kit, is a 19 years old young man. He pleaded guilty before me to one charge of burglary. 2.He admitted that on 17 November 2010 he burgled a domestic premises in Mong Kok. The burgled flat was in fact the residence of the defendant’s classmate, YIU Kong-kuen (“Yiu”). 3.The defendant and Yiu were classmates; they attended Form 5 at secondary school at the material time. At the material time Yiu resided with his parents at the burgled premises. Sometime in October 2010, Yiu lost a bundle of keys including those giving access to the burgled premises when he and the defendant went to play at an amusement games centre. 4.On 17 November 2010, i.e. the offence date, Yiu went to play football at a public playground with a group of classmates, including the defendant. The defendant absented himself from the play after Yiu got changed. 5.On the other hand, Yiu’s mother left the premises at around 3.15 pm on 17 November for shopping. Prior to leaving, Mrs. Yiu had secured the metal gate and the front door of the premises. When she returned to the premises, approximately one hour later the same day, she discovered the metal gate and the front door were opened. The defendant was in the bathroom at the time. Mrs. Yiu asked what the defendant was doing at the premises. The defendant replied that he went to the premises to use the bathroom while Mrs. Yiu was buying things downstairs. The defendant then left the premises hurriedly. 6.Mrs. Yiu discovered there were signs of ransacking inside a drawer of a cabinet where Mr. Yiu kept his cash. She suspected that the defendant might have burgled the premises. She informed her husband of the incident and reported the matter to the police. 7.Mr. Yiu checked and found that $16,000 cash was missing from the drawer. 8.Yiu contacted the defendant by telephone and asked the defendant to come to the premises to assist enquiries. The defendant arrived at the premises at around 6.15 pm and he was arrested on the spot. 9.Under caution, the defendant admitted the offence. He told the police $12,000 of the stolen cash was placed behind the shrine table while $4,000 stolen cash was discarded behind the toilet inside the bathroom when he discovered that Mrs. Yiu had returned to the premises. $16,000 cash was hence recovered from the two locations as pointed out by the defendant. 10.Yiu’s bundle of keys were also recovered at the corridor of a nearby building. 11.The defendant was subsequently interviewed under video recording and he made further admissions. 12.He admitted, inter alia, that he and Yiu were classmates. He had been invited to the premises by Yiu on previous occasions. He had seen Yiu taking cash out from the drawer, hence the defendant knew where money was kept at Yiu’s residence. On a day in October 2010, when he and Yiu were playing games at an amusement games centre, he saw Yiu drop his keys. The defendant picked the keys up and kept them. He knew that there was cash kept at the premises and hence he waited for an opportunity to steal therein. He admitted he committed the offence on 17 November. 13.The fingerprints of the left middle finger and left ring finger of the defendant were found on the inside of the drawer. 14.The defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong. He was only 17 years old when he committed the offence in question. The offence was committed in 2010 and was only brought to court this year. I was told the delay was due to the fault on the part of the police. 15.I have before me a Rehabilitation Centre report and Detention Centre report. Because of the problem of overweight, the defendant is unsuitable for detention in a Detention Centre. The defendant is both mentally and physically fit for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre or a Training Centre. 16.For a full aged offender, 3 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate starting point for a domestic burglary of this type. The defendant was only 17 when he committed the offence. Had the case been brought to court in 2010 or soon after the commission of the offence, I would have considered Training Centre as an sentencing option. But as pointed out by Mr. Chan, there has been a delay of 2 years and the delay was due to the fault on the part of the police and has nothing to do with the defendant. 17.I accept that there are special circumstances in this case. I have considered the sentencing report. I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr. Chan. I have considered the conduct and behaviour of the defendant since his arrest. 18.It seems to me in the past 2 years the defendant has been able to lead a law abiding life, and there are some improvements in his general behaviour in the past 2 years. I agree with the recommendation of the CSD officer that in order to strengthen the defendant’s law abiding concept, a period of short-term disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to the defendant’s rehabilitation. 19.Bearing in mind the young age of the defendant at the time of the offence, his guilty plea before me and the delay of 2 years, I am prepared take an exceptional course in this case. Instead of sending the defendant to prison or Training Centre, I will sentence the defendant to a Rehabilitation Centre.
|