HKSAR v. Chow Man Ho

DCCC 965/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 965 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant was convicted after trial of one charge of burglary of a non-domestic premises.

2.The gist of the facts of the case are that, property inside the burgled premises were found missing on the morn of 25 March 2011. Upon review of closed circuit television footages, 2 people were seen entering the premises and moving around therein. During their presence, two of the closed circuit television cameras were seen to have been moved so that they pointed away from the two people’s action. The defendant’s fingerprints were eventually lifted from those two cameras.

Previous convictions

3.The defendant was of previously clear record at the time of the commission of the present offence.

4.Just one month after the defendant’s commission of the present offence, he committed another offence of theft and was convicted and sentenced to Detention Centre. After his release that time, he was recalled to the Detention Centre upon another 2 convictions for theft and 2 convictions for obtaining property by deception.

Mitigation

5.The defendant is 21 years old and lives with his parents.

6.After Form 3, the defendant went to work in a hair salon for 1 year, then at a construction site for 1 year. The defendant was last released from the Detention Centre in June 2012. He was sent there as a result of another case that he was sentenced for in April. The defendant managed to find a job at a surveyor company since August 2012 and has been working up to now, earning $9,600 per month. Letters from his employer and social welfare officer are handed up.

Sentence

7.The maximum sentence for a charge of burglary is 14 years’ imprisonment. Burglary is not an excepted offence in Schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221.

8.The defendant is 21 years and 16 days old today and has just missed to be caught under s.109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. Training Centre is no longer a sentencing option since the cut off age for intake is also 21 years old.

9.I have heard from the defendant’s social worker and the defendant’s mother in court. Both told me that after the second release from the Detention Centre the defendant had shown marked change in his behaviour. Mrs. Wu told me that the defendant’s fundamental values have also changed, he has been much better with his parents and been giving money to her every month.

10.Mr. Hui, the social worker, told me that from his experience for the past 6 years, he can tell that the defendant’s change is not cosmetic and that the defendant is worthy of a chance. After all, the burglary was his very first offence.

11.I was told that upon his latest release, the defendant had found himself a proper job at Albert Tse Engineering Survey Limited. Mr. Tse the Director wrote a letter on his behalf and stated that he was willing to continue to employ the defendant after his ordeal.

12.Judging from what I have read and heard, it would appear that it is possible that the latest detention had the supposed effect and the defendant may have been put back on the right track.

13.For the reason of the defendant’s continued employment and the words of Mr. Hui and the defendant’s mother and the changes they have observed in the defendant after the latest bout of detention, I will deviate from the sentencing guidelines and deal with the defendant rather unconventionally, but, I believe, still effectively.

14.I will adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment. Since the defendant was convicted after trial there is no discount from this sentence.

15.I will however order that this sentence to be suspended for a period of 3 years. I have explained to the defendant that should he in the 3 year period commit and be convicted of any other criminal offence, he will be brought back to court and be dealt with on the new conviction as well as on this suspended sentence, which will likely be activated, either in full or in part. The defendant indicated that he understood.

16.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, suspended for 3 years.