HKSAR v. Ramos Jr Fredjewell a

DCCC 123/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 123 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of non-domestic premises burglary and one charge of failure to produce proof of ID card.

2.In summary, in the morning of 26 November 2014, the defendant entered a laboratory of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University as a trespasser and stole five notebook computers and a rucksack belonging to staff of the university. 

3.Later, on the same day, the defendant sold three of the notebook computers to a second-hand dealer for $3,800.   Their dealing was spotted by an off-duty police officer.  The second-hand dealer and the defendant were later intercepted by the police.  The defendant was arrested and searched.  $3,800 and the stolen rucksack were found on the defendant. 

4.The total value of the stolen properties was about $44,000.

5.The defendant has previous convictions on 13 previous occasions.  His conviction record includes 10 theft and one burglary.

6.In mitigation, Mr Yuen, solicitor for the defendant has helpfully prepared a written submission.  The court is informed that the defendant is a 36-year-old divorced man without a fixed place of abode.  He was living on picking up wastepaper and scrap metal for sale, earning about $1,800 a month at the time of the offence.

7.On the day in question, he entered the university intending to collect waste papers left by the students for sale. Seeing that there were certain notebook computers left unattended in the laboratory, out of momentary greed, he forced open the door and stole the computers and rucksack. 

8.As to the 2nd offence, the defendant had lost his ID card in about August 2014.  He had no money to pay for the replacement ID card.  It is submitted that there is no aggravating features in this case. 

9.Burglary is a serious offence.  It is accepted by Mr Yuen that the conventional starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment.  And I accept the submission by Mr Yuen that there is no aggravating feature in the circumstances in this case when the offence was committed. 

10.However, I do note that the defendant has a number of criminal convictions.  I have considered whether a starting point for the 1st offence should be enhanced on the principle of persistent offender. 

11.Having considered all the circumstances, in particular, the sentences for the previous theft conviction suggesting that those records were for petty and dissimilar offences, I decide not to enhance the starting point.  The defendant is however warned that should he commit further dishonest offences in the future, the court is entitled to increase the sentence.

12.Now, in this case, I will still use 2½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 1 and reduce it to 20 months to reflect the defendant’s plea of guilty.

13.For the 2nd Charge, the defendant is fined $1,000, to be paid within one month.  In default of payment, the defendant will be imprisoned for 2 days. 

14.Taking into consideration of the totality principle and the fact that he is serving a sentence in prison and unable to pay, the 2 days’ imprisonment will run concurrently with the sentence in Charge 1.