HKSAR v. Ng Cheong Shun
|
DCCC 672/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 672 OF 2013 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, the first being attempted burglary and the second failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause. The second charge, in essence, is the defendant jumping bail. 2.The facts of this case are as follows. On 22 March last year at about midday, the defendant was spotted outside a village house in Yuen Long. This village house consisted of three individual apartments. 3.The defendant walked around outside this village house for some time. He was walking around long enough for the occupants of the 1st and 2nd floor to notice him. They watched him for, according to the facts, at least 30 minutes in broad daylight. I suspect the defendant was plucking up courage to approach the gate. 4.Finally, the defendant was spotted by one of the witnesses kneeling down in front of the rear entrance. He wore a glove, and with a crowbar, started to prise open the gate. When the occupants shouted at him, he immediately dropped the crowbar and ran away. This in essence is attempted burglary. 5.The owner of the ground floor unit confirmed that his lock had been damaged. I have been told today that the reason he did not appear for trial was because he panicked. 6.The defendant’s plea today is his best mitigation. The defendant is not a man of clear record. However, I do note it was a shop theft in the year 2003. It is his only previous conviction for which he was fined $500. That indicates to me it was not a serious theft. 7.Defendant, you are now 28 years old. I have been told that you have been essentially working since you left school. However, the problems started when you lost your job at the end of 2012. This loss of income led to you committing the offence in March 2013. I have been told it was the stress and pressure of being unemployed that led you to commit this offence. When you were employed you would, from your monthly income, assist your family with monthly contributions. 8.From the facts clearly you are not a professional burglar, and I accept from your background you are not a hardened criminal, which would explain why you did panic and left Hong Kong before your trial. 9.I have had two letters of mitigation today, one from yourself, one essentially from your father, but written by a District Councillor, Mr Mak Ip-shing of the Yuen Long District Councillors’ Office. I have considered the content of these letters and I accept your remorse is genuine and your promise to your family that once you have served your punishment for this offence you will not reoffend. 10.For offences of domestic burglary guidelines do exist. The Court of Appeal is of the view that where there are no existing mitigating or aggravating factors, 3 years’ starting point is appropriate for a domestic premises burglary, and just because it is an attempted burglary does not make it less serious. The only reason you did not manage to commit the substantive offence was because you were scared away. 11.Defendant, please stand up. I have considered those guidelines, but I have also considered your plea, your obvious remorse, letters of mitigation, the explanation put forward on your behalf, your offer to compensate the victim, as well as your background. 12.I will take, for Charge 1, considering all those factors, a starting point of 2 years and 6 months. For Charge 3, I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. 13.You pleaded guilty. You are entitled to a discount of one‑third. 14.After that deduction, for Charge 1, you are sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment; for Charge 3, 4 months’ imprisonment. Of this 4 months I will make 2 months consecutive to Charge 1 and 2 months concurrent to Charge 1. 15.In total, you are sentenced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment. Do you understand that sentence? DEFENDANT: Understood.
|