HKSAR v. Chan Chi Wai
|
DCCC 461/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2013 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to Section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. 2.The particulars of the offence are that on 24 March of this year, the defendant entered as a trespasser a school in Fanling, New Territories and stole from within three copper pipes, one water tap and some electric wires. 3.It was not disputed that the school was premises that have been vacated for many years. However, the school is still secured by locks and patrolled by a caretaker. 4.On 24 March at about 9.30 in the morning, the caretaker (PW1) returned to the school and heard some noises. He then reported the matter to the police. 5.The police came within half an hour and searched the school. They found the defendant in a storeroom dealing with a copper pipe. He had some tools on him that he had obviously brought to the premises. By the time the police had arrived, he had dismantled a tap, a couple of pipes and some wires. 6.I do not have an estimate of the value but they would be of little value. 7.The defendant was effectively caught red-handed. 8.Clearly, the defendant was looking for items, as he told the police, to resell, such as scrap metal, wire, items of that nature. 9.After arrest and under caution, he made a full admission. 10.The defendant’s best mitigation today is his plea of guilty. 11.The defendant is not a man of clear record. He has seven previous convictions, of which four relate to dishonesty. He was last released from a term of imprisonment in October 2012. 12.The defendant is 32 years old with a 5-year-old daughter. He is divorced. The defendant does not work but does take care of the daily needs of his daughter. The mother of his child has abandoned both the defendant and the child. 13.The defendant has a routine of taking the daughter to school and then whilst she is at school he looks around for scrap that has any value to sell, such as paper, metal or cardboard. This is the explanation I have heard in mitigation. 14.Normally, a starting point of 2 years and 6 months would be appropriate for a burglary of non-domestic premises. 15.There have been instances recently where a lower starting point could be appropriate, where a defendant enters very obviously empty, abandoned and vacant premises. In such circumstances, a thief is truly opportunistic. 16.Circumstances such as the ones I have described can be differentiated from a burglary per se. 17.Having seen photographs of this school and accepting the premises are clearly vacant and abandoned, it is overrun by dogs and looked after by a single caretaker, I will depart from the usual starting point. I will also take into account that the theft was in broad daylight and what was actually stolen or what was being sought was of little value. 18.Defendant, please stand up. 19.After considering all those factors plus mitigation, I will take a starting point of 15 months. 20.You plead guilty. You are entitled to a discount of five months, so for this offence you will be sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. COURT: Do you understand? DEFENDANT: Understood.
|