HKSAR v. Hon Ming Chor

DCCC 37/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 37 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. Particulars are that he on 12^th October 2014 entered a wooden cubicle for storage located at level B1 of the car park of Grand Century Plaza and stole 110 copper tube connectors.

Outline of facts

2.The cubicle in question is constructed out of wooden boards and is used by the owner of a decoration company to store tools and materials. The cubicle was secured by a door bolt fixed by screws on a piece of wooden board which was used as the door.

3.At about 5:35pm on 12^th October, the defendant was seen by the security guard of Grand Century Plaza leaving the area of the cubicle. Since it was a public holiday and no workers should be on duty, the guard felt suspicious and wanted to intercept the defendant for enquiry. Upon being intercepted, the defendant dropped the plastic red, white and blue coloured bag he was carrying and fled. The security guard gave chase. During the chase, the defendant dropped the black rucksack that he was carrying on his shoulder as well. The defendant was eventually stopped at the lobby on B1 floor and the matter was reported to the Police.

4.Police officers arrived at scene. Sixty and 50 pieces of copper tube connectors were found in the plastic bag and the rucksack respectively. The defendant was arrested and under caution admitted to stealing those copper tube connectors.

5.It was later confirmed that the door bolt of the cubicle was broken with some screws removed; that the 110 copper tube connectors were stored by a decoration company in the cubicle; and that the total value of the tube connectors was about $20,000.

Previous convictions

6.The defendant has a total of 29 previous criminal convictions from 27 court appearances. The latest conviction was in April 2014 for theft when he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. There is one previous conviction for burglary dated 10^th June 2011 when he was sentenced in the District Court to 20 months’ imprisonment.

7.Out of the 29 convictions, 17 are related to dishonesty. I am told that the defendant committed the present offence about 3 months after his last release from the Hei Ling Chau Treatment Centre on 20^th July 2014.

Mitigation

8.The defendant was born in Hong Kong and is 39 years old. He received education up to Form 2 level. Although he is married, he and his wife have been separated for some 8 to 10 years. Mr. Tang for the defendant told the court that the defendant had always tried his best to find employment and would only rely on public assistance when he had to. At the time of his commission of the present offence, he had just been released from treatment and was not able to find a job and since he was not on public assistance at that time, he foolishly decided to commit the offence to get some quick money. The defendant promises the court that he will try his best to rebuild his life and will not re-offend.

Sentence

9.The maximum sentence for burglary on conviction upon indictment is that of 14 years’ imprisonment.

10.It is not disputed that the sentencing tariff for burglary of a non-domestic premises is that of two and a half years’ imprisonment, subject to any aggravating or mitigating factors. It is also not disputed that it was a non-domestic premises that was burgled in the present case.

11.The offence was committed at a time when the premises was expected to be empty. It was in fact empty and there was no confrontation between the defendant and the user of the storage cubicle. There must have been some planning in the commission of the burglary in that the defendant knew to visit the cubicle on a public holiday when no workers would be there, and that he knew there would be something of value stored inside. There was no vandalism of the premises save for the breaking of the door bolt. The copper tube connectors were worth around $20,000, which is not a large figure.

12.Given the circumstances of the commission of the burglary and the factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I will adopt a starting point of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.

13.I find that the defendant is a persistent offender. There are multiple previous convictions involving dishonesty. The defendant committed the present offence just 3 months after his latest release from custody. The sentence needs to be adjusted upwards both to deter the defendant and to protect the public. I find therefore that the sentence should be increased for the presence of the aggravating factor of the defendant’s criminal record. I will increase the sentence by 3 months for this aggravating factor.

14.Mr. Tang mentioned how the defendant had strived to earn his own living and not rely on public assistance and that he should be given some credit for that. I find that any credit merited is already embraced in the one third discount for his guilty plea. I find that the defendant’s guilty plea is the only mitigating factor.

15.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment after plea.