HKSAR V Lo Kam Hong

DCCC 611/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 611 OF 2012

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of burglary of Tung Shing Telecom shop, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.In summary in the early hours of the 4th June 2012 Mr Sung Yuet-ming, a taxi driver, saw a male acting suspiciously outside number 18, Tsing Hoi Circuit in Yuen Long.  From his home Mr Sung kept the male under observation when he saw the male use a ditch cover to break the window of Tung Shing Telecom shop. 

3.Soon after the male holding a black object was seen leaving the shop and boarding a taxi.  Mr Sung took a series of photographs and called the police, giving the police the description of the burglar and the registration number of the taxi.

4.The police were able to trace the taxi, which had driven a male, who matched the description of the burglar given by Mr Sung, to Ting Fuk House, On Ting Estate. The security guard identified this person as the defendant, who was then arrested at his home.  23 mobile phones taken from the Tung Shing Telecom shop were found in the defendant’s home.  Under caution the defendant admitted the burglary.

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Lai on behalf of the defendant, in particular that he has two daughters to care for and fully cooperated with the police on arrest. 

6.The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 as applied in HKSAR v CHENG Wai-kai  CACC 338/2007).

7.The defendant is properly to be regarded as a persistent offender, having multiple convictions for offences of dishonesty, the last being for attempted theft, for which he received a 10 months prison sentence in March 2011.  However the defendant has no convictions for offences of burglary.  Taking this into account together with the fact that all stolen property was recovered and that the sentence to be imposed for the burglary will be the longest sentence the defendant has served to date, I do not propose to increase the starting point by reason of the defendant being a persistent offender.

8.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment.  Mr Lai asks that I give the defendant a further 2 months discount on account of his cooperation on arrest. This is already incorporated into the one-third discount given on a plea of guilty.  There are no grounds to further reduce the sentence.