HKSAR v. Man Shun Tai

DCCC 1031/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1031 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted burglary at a residential premises on Clear Water Bay in the New Territories.

2.The facts admitted state that a domestic helper, a Madam Ning who is referred to in these proceedings as PW2, was working at the house which is House F, a three-storey house with a courtyard surrounded by walls and fences.  At 10 o’clock in the morning on 23 September, the domestic helper left the house, having left it locked and the windows secured.  

3.Shortly after 7 o’clock that same day, a Mr Bettle who lives in House J heard a noise coming from House F.  He went out to his courtyard to see what was going on.  He saw a man standing next to a window of House F, acting in a suspicious manner.  There was also another man who was the defendant there.  Mr Bettle shouted out to them and asked if it was the owner of House F who was at the premises, but there was no response from the defendant or the other man.  The neighbour then realised that neither of them were in fact the owner of these premises and he also saw that a window of the house had been damaged.  The defendant and the man with him then climbed over the wall of House F to the adjacent House I and fled.  Mr Bettle chased after them. 

4.When they arrived at an open space outside House A, Mr Bettle saw the defendant and the other man and he noticed that the defendant was wearing a face mask, wearing a pair of gloves, a cap and holding a screwdriver.  Mr Bettle managed to subdue the defendant but the other man made good his escape.

5.The police were summoned and when they arrived later, they arrested and cautioned the defendant who said he was hungry, so he went to the house to steal food. 

6.An investigation at House F revealed that the window at the rear of the premises was damaged and there were scratches found on the glass.  A glasscutter was found at the window-sill, and on the escape route which the defendant and the other man had used, a hammer was found.

7.When he was later interviewed under video recording, the defendant repeated that he had gone there to steal food.  He denied having been inside the house, and he admitted that the face mask, gloves and cap were his as well as the screwdriver.

8.The defendant has been before the court on 11 previous occasions.  Six of those offences related to offences of dishonesty and the last three were offences of burglary.  In 2005, he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for burglary.  In 2007, he was sentenced to 2 years for burglary, and it was ordered that 1 year of that sentence should run consecutive to the sentence imposed in 2005.  In September 2010, he was sentenced to 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary.

9.The defendant is 57 years of age.  He has a girlfriend in China by whom he has a daughter who is 7 years of age who attends primary school, and he says that he was invited by a friend to commit this offence. 

10.The premises concerned were a substantial residence and I do not accept that the defendant was going there merely to steal food.  I am sure that he and his determined co-burglar were looking for rich pickings inside these premises.  The premises were damaged and it seems that a determined effort was made to gain entry.  The defendant was wearing gloves, hat, face mask and holding a screwdriver.  On the escape route, a hammer was recovered and at the premises themselves, by the window, some glasscutters were found.  Fortunately, the noise made by the defendant and the wanted party was overheard by a neighbour who came to see what was going on.  

11.Mr Whitehouse, could you mention to the police that the neighbour is to be commended for his very public-spirited actions in this matter?

MR WHITEHOUSE: Yes, I’ll see that’s done, my Lord.

12.Thank you very much. 

13.The only mitigation, as counsel for the defendant has rightly acknowledged in this case, is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty.  The usual starting point for offences involving residential burglaries is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.  I note in this case that the defendant has three previous convictions for burglary: in 2005, 2007 and 2010.  It would seem therefore that the normal deterrent sentence for cases of this kind did not deter this particular defendant.

14.What I propose to do is adopt a starting point of 3 years and 6 months, reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea and impose a sentence of 2 years and 4 months.